Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th May],
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to reduce the sums mentioned in Item 10 of Part I of the Schedule (Page 6) as follows: —

(a) in column 3, by leaving out ".£142,601,000" and inserting "£87,601,000",
and
(b) in column 4, by leaving out "£82,605,000" and inserting "£55,605,000". —[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 1lth June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Beef (EEC Stocks)

Mr. Loyden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what answer he has had from the EEC Commission on ways of releasing beef for the benefit of consumers of the Community.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The EEC Commission has recently made arrangements to enable beef held in intervention to be sold for the benefit of consumers within the Community. These include the sale of frozen beef for processing and for general consumption. In addition, a scheme for subsidised sales to non-profit-making institutions is under detailed consideration.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the steps taken so far and

those he intends to take in the future will mean that beef will be available in sufficient quantity and at reasonable price for the British housewife?

Mr. Peart: That is always our aim. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have stated our desire to renegotiate the terms affecting the CAP.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sales by non-profit-making institutions, namely, the British farmer, are already taking place? What does he intend to do about the beef situation?

Mr. Peart: That is entirely another question separate from the EEC.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement in yesterday's Financial Times that world prices of meat arc well below Community levels but that the consumer here does not benefit because of the 11 per cent. import duty? Will he remove the duty?

Mr. Peart: No. I am well aware of the article, which I read carefully, but I cannot take action yet.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the 190,000.000 lbs of beef, now in cold storage in Common Market warehouses, it is proposed to make available to sausage factories; at what price; and what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards this matter.

Mr. Peart: Less than 5 per cent. of this amount has been sold by tender specifically for the manufacturing of beef products, but frozen beef has now been made available for purchase at fixed prices according to quality and description, without restriction on end use

Mr. Hooley: Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. I am rather fond of beef. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the beef iceberg is further evidence, if any were needed, of the lunacy of the common agricultural policy? Is he willing to take an opportunity to ask the new President of France and the new Chancellor of Germany to exercise their undoubted economic talents and to reform the common agricultural policy and return, if possible, to the British system of guaranteed prices?

Mr. Peart: I think that my hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has stated that we would like to reform the CAP. My right hon. Friend will very soon be making a major statement on this matter at the Council of Ministers. We shall spell out our proposals, and hon. Members will see that we want to make some positive and constructive changes.

Mr. Boscawen: Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes too excited about the prospects of returning to the old deficiency payments system and guaranteed prices, will he meet the dairy and beef farmers in my constituency? He will learn from them what a terrible disaster the old system was in the latter days of the last Labour Government, when they worked against the beef and dairy producers.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman must know that we provided a system which was admired by many countries throughout the world. The system worked. Conservative Members never altered it until they decided to go into the Community.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers in my constituency are urging me, as I have urged my right hon. Friend, to consider returning to deficiency payments. Is he aware that I have the full support of the National Farmers' Union in my constituency?

Mr. Peart: I am aware that many farmers want to return to the guarantee system. I am not saying that it would be essentially a deficiency payments system. That is one method. The previous system worked very well.

Mr. Paul Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he was last in office he commanded some confidence among farmers generally? I readily accept that. However, does he recognise that farmers throughout the country consider that he is not prepared to support the advantages which are available under the EEC arrangements and that, equally, he is not prepared to put anything in their place? Does he appreciate that the farmers are losing the confidence in him which they once had, because they feel that he is falling between two stools?

Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I have recognised that there is disquiet about our intermediate policy. The farmers feel that there is an absence of the support that they would have had in the Community. When I obtained an option on intervention they felt that I should quickly state the Government's position. That is why we are having close and intimate talks with the National Farmers' Union.

Deep Water Fishing

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is now taking as the result of pioneering experiments conducted by his Department in deep water fishing.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): My Department is continuing to inform the fishing and processing industries of the results of research into deep water species and blue whiting stocks as these become available. This information should enable the industry to determine the possibilities of exploiting these resources.

Mr. Dalyell: When is more information likely to be forthcoming so that decisions may be taken on the matter?

Mr. Buchan: A good deal of information has already come out and should be in the Library, in the form of the various announcements from the Ministry. I think my hon. Friend will find them interesting. The trade is beginning to show interest in the matter, too, with the demonstrations at Torry and elsewhere.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As the Ministry has stated in its hand-outs that the possible catch of blue whiting has been known to be 50 tons per haul and that the spawning stock could sustain yields of 1 million tons per annum, will the Minister assure the House that every possible effort will be made to catch these fish, no matter how difficult that may be, because they seem to be a potential source of stocks that we dare not ignore?

Mr. Buchan: Yes. The White Fish Authority is now employing a short charter to examine the prospects of blue whiting, and we are encouraging that development.

Food Prices

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the countries, together with the quantities involved as a proportion of the United Kingdom domestic market, from which food has been imported during the past three months at a price lower than the prevailing EEC prices.

Mr. Peart: I regret that this detailed information is not readily available. For many products world prices have recently been higher than full Community prices. A number of foodstuffs for which there are support prices set under the CAP are available on import into the United Kingdom, from both Community and third country sources, at lower prices than those obtaining for comparable products in the original Community. This is because of the operation of transitional and monetary compensatory amounts.

Mr. Spence: I regret that the figures are not readily available. Is it not the case, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the existence of the Community and our participation in it has meant a stable supply of food for the British housewife at reasonably favourable prices compared to world prices?

Mr. Peart: I do not know whether that can be deduced from what I said. However, sugar is an example of a commodity the world price of which is currently above the EEC price. Milling wheat is another example. I have often argued, especially in relation to meat, that it is important for us to think of the consumer as well as the producer.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that world wheat prices have fallen more than 30 per cent. since February, that most world grain prices are now lower than the EEC levels, and that the prices of other foods, including sugar, cocoa and coffee, are also falling? In these circumstances, is it not even more important that Britain should free itself from the CAP?

Mr. Peart: I gave all the facts I had, and I stand by them. My right hon. Friend must appreciate that those are the facts, and they cannot be altered.

Mr. Pym: The Minister referred to sugar. Does he agree that if he does not do something about the price of sugar

the shortage is likely to increase and to be serious next year? There is an urgent need for action, so that farmers will plant up their full acreage next year.

Mr. Peart: I do not dissent from that. I am having talks about the matter. It is one which concerns the Community as well. There is a great problem which also concerns cane sugar and the question of fulfilling quotas.

National Farmers' Union (Derbyshire)

Mr. Rost: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet the Derbyshire branch of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Peart: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Rost: That is probably just as well. When will the Government realise that livestock farmers in Derbyshire and elsewhere are losing money on pig and beef production, and that they have lost all confidence in the Government, because promises are no substitute for paying them a fair price for their food now? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not stop trying to rig the retail price index at the expense of the farmers?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulties facing livestock farmers occurred under the previous Government. There were high feed costs then. I have tried to alleviate this by giving direct aid, and I stand by that. Only yesterday I announced in reply to a Written Question that the subsidy affecting pig producers will continue. I believe this will help to strengthen the market. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's doctrinaire view.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a visit to Derbyshire by him or my hon. Friend the Minister of State would be very beneficial, particularly for the Minister who went? Is he aware that I have asked my hon. Friend privately whether he will make a visit to Derbyshire, because it is a county with multifarious farming activities, ranging more widely, perhaps, than those in any other county? I am certain that a visit will do a world of good.

Mr. Peart: I note carefully and sympathetically what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Granted, the right hon. Gentleman has given direct aid in the form of a calf subsidy, but will he explain how that will help the farmer trying to fatten cattle?

Mr. Peart: The aid goes direct into that section of the industry, but I believe that it has an effect all round. I believe that our approach is right. Moreover, we must have talks with the industry—we are having talks now—about a long-term approach to the beef industry.

Hill Farming

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in integrating the hill farming policies of the United Kingdom with those of the EEC; and whether he is satisfied with the assistance available to British hill farmers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Roland Moyle): Integration of our hill farming policies with those of the EEC would be through the Directive on Less Favoured Areas, which has not yet come into effect. The level of assistance that we are giving to our hill farmers at present appears to be adequate.

Mr. Howells: I know that the Minister is aware that there are two schools of thought in Britain and within the EEC on the future of hill land in Britain. Many believe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that, given the right incentives, production from the hills could be doubled? Will he assure the House that he will do everything in his power to persuade his counterparts in Europe that he will fulfil this promise?

Mr. Moyle: Yes, Sir. There are still a number of negotiations to carry out, and we shall carry them out with that end in view.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that the hill farming directive was

passed by the Council of Ministers, that all it needs now is its implementation, and that if it is implemented properly in the United Kingdom it will be of great benefit to hill farmers and increase the production of not only hill farms but marginal land?

Mr. Moyle: Certainly the directive has to be implemented. We have done all we can at this stage to ensure that it is implemented.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Will the Minister confirm that the hill areas in this country which receive assistance, and the grants, will remain roughly similar?

Mr. Moyle: I do not want to disagree. "Roughly" is, I think, the word.

Livestock Farmers: (Vale of Belvoir)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make an official visit to the Vale of Belvoir, Leicestershire, in order to meet livestock farmers there.

Mr. Peart: I have no present intentions to make an official visit to the Vale of Belvoir. I have had full discussions with representatives of the farming community and am well aware of the present situation of livestock farmers.

Mr. Latham: I regret that answer. As the 50p pig subsidy has not stopped the level of sow slaughtering so far, what confidence has the right hon. Gentleman that keeping it going next month, at the present amount, will reduce that level of slaughtering?

Mr. Peart: I have said in reply to Questions, and have repeated it in speeches when pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that if I felt that the subsidy should continue I should take action. That is what I have done. I am carefully watching the market.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend accept some of the invitations to visit certain areas? If Conservative Members are to make political noises as friends of the farmers, will he go to those areas to tell the farmers that the Conservatives are making dupes of them? Conservative Members appear as their champions and then, when it comes to a vote in the House, instead of their having a majority of 19, we have a majority of 11.


On the occasion to which I am referring they pulled 30 Members out of the Lobby. The farmers might be interested in that.

Mr. Peart: Many farm leaders have noted the Opposition's attitude, especially on a crucial debate. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many farmers very much regret that he will not visit fanners from widely varied constituencies or allow them to come here to meet him? Does he recall that I have been trying to persuade him to meet my farmers since 11th April, and that he gave as his reply to my request the fact that he did not think it would be helpful to meet farmers from any particular area? Will he accept that my farmers and many others take the opposite view, and feel that it would do him a great deal of good to meet ordinary working farmers and not only their national officials, good though they are?

Mr. Peart: I am continually in touch with the farming community and farming leaders. Moreover, I have told the hon. Lady that I shall be delighted to see her at my Ministry if she wishes, at any time, to discuss the problems of her constituents. [Interruption.] She is the representative of her constituents, and I am sure that she will be able to put their point of view adequately and eloquently.

Mr. Pym: The trouble in the debate was that the Minister gave no hope to the industry. Is he aware that we on the Conservative benches are interested in the consumer? Are not Labour Members aware that if there are shortages, prices go up? Does not the Minister agree that the fact that there were 15 per cent. fewer gilts in pig in the first quarter of this year compared with last year means shortages and higher prices? What will he do about it?

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, who was Chief Whip in the previous Government. He knows that his own leader said that he would reduce prices at a stroke, and look what happened.

Intervention Board

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he

will make a statement on the future of the Intervention Board.

Mr. Peart: Under the provisions of Section 6 of the European Communities Act 1972 the Intervention Board is charged with certain functions in respect of the United Kingdom's obligations under the EEC's common agricultural policy. The board will continue to fulfill these subject to any changes which may occur as a result of renegotiation.

Mr. Marten: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Intervention Board system in this country is inapplicable? Is the Minister aware that many farmers all over the country would much prefer to go back to the pre-1970 system of guarantees and support?

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of that. I have been made especially aware of it when I have met farmers and representatives of the industry. They much preferred the old system—the guarantee system—which I am proud to say was basically introduced by the first Labour Government after the war. It worked well. I think that intervention is not working well in Europe. The hon. Gentleman has a very important point.

Mr. Torney: When the Opposition spokesman speaks about an interest in Community prices, is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservative Party was in government it was responsible for entry to the Common Market and the change to the Intervention Board system, and that it is the Intervention Board that is taking food off the market in order to keep prices high? When 200 farmers v/ere here last week they showed that they do not want that.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend confirms that there is disquiet about a policy which bases its support for the market on intervention. I feel that intervention is not working even in Europe. For that reason I obtained an option when I went to Europe the first time.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to intervention, which is becoming well known to us all, will he tell us what the Intervention Board is having to do? Would it make him much happier if he renamed it the "Non-intervention Board"?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has made a strange intervention. He knows that the board exists and that it is concerned with refunds on imports of agricultural produce from member States. I am talking about our Intervention Board. It provides aid—private storage, and so on. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was criticising the intervention system which operates basically in Europe. On either side of the House there is disquiet on this matter.

EEC Ministers (Meeting)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Peart: The meeting of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC scheduled for 21st May has been postponed. I was at a previous one on 7th May.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman making sure that his Department is keeping itself informed of the arrangements for fuel oil subsidies for horticulturists in other member countries of the Community? Will he bear in mind that before long some of the glasshouse growers will need to know what the situation will be after the end of this year so that they can plan their programme? When he meets his colleagues will he bear that matter in mind?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I shall bear that in mind. I introduced a subsidy which I believe was welcomed by the industry. I think that what we gave was much better than what was provided in any other European country.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the present agricultural difficulties are completely due to the abandonment of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments by the previous Government? Has my right hon. Friend noted the speech of Sir John Stratton on Monday of this week, advocating a return to guaranteed prices as a long-term solution?

Mr. Peart: As the House will know, I was probably the only Minister who declared an interest in FMC when I was, I think, a successful member of the board. I have noted what Sir John has

said. I do not want to repeat replies that I have already given.

Mr. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nostalgia for the deficiency payments system does not strike an echo with the farmers who have memories of that system? Does he agree that the way in which the system was operated by his right hon. and hon. Friends between 1965 and 1970 led to virtual stagnation throughout the agricultural industry?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman is being partisan. If he compares the price review awards during the years that he has mentioned with those that were granted during the previous Conservative administration he will find that the Labour Party has a good record. There is no question about that.

Mr. Flannery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a major meeting of agricultural workers in this House the other night? When he eventually meets the EEC Ministers will he take steps to raise the problem of getting rid of the tied cottage in Britain, in Europe and throughout the world?

Mr. Peart: I note what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, I must take note of his words because of the position of our friends in the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. There is a Question on the Order Paper on this matter.

Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he has taken away the floor in the market we and the agricultural industry are glad to know that he is thinking of bringing back some kind of guarantee? Has he worked out the cost? Does he realise that one of the problems of the guarantee system was the rising bill? That was one reason, when he was Minister of Agriculture before, for the system getting into difficulties. Has the right hon. Gentleman worked out the cost and who will pay?

Mr. Peart: We have specific proposals and we shall put them to the industry. I know the cost of the intervention policy which is pursued in the Community. 1 believe that good meat put into store is bad for the producer and for the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman should know that.

Farms and Farm Holdings

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will include specific reference to the ownership and size of farms and farm holdings in the long-term discussions he proposes to have on agriculture with representatives of the industry.

Mr. Moyle: Yes.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is not the only cross that the farming community has to bear? Does he realise that the community looks with considerable apprehension at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan to introduce a wealth tax of the kind that is advocated by his hon Friends below the Gangway? Does he realise that such a tax spells death for the family farmer? Will he give an undertaking that it is the intention that this tax shall be administered only in a way which will enable the continuance of the family farmer?

Mr. Moyle: The wealth tax will be outlined in a Green Paper, which will be subject to discussion. We are well aware of the concern expressed by many farmers. There is no evidence to date that capital taxation has adversely affected the size of family farms.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have gained the impression in the course of Question Time that no farmer will be liable to this kind of tax?

Mr. Moyle: That deduction is easy to draw from the proceedings.

Mr. Nott: I feel that I should declare an indirect interest in a small unprofitable farm and a more direct interest in Cornish broccoli, early potatoes, beef, mutton and cheese. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that output per acre of small farms in this country is far greater than that of large farms? Is he aware that small farmers cannot survive unless there is a reasonable price level for their products?

Mr. Moyle: That is a different question, which does not arise on the capital taxation of farms.

Milk Production

Mr. Peter Milks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to encourage milk production so that there is enough to meet the requirements of cheese and butter.

Mr. Buchan: We shall take whatever action may be considered necessary in the light of the Government's policy objective of maintaining maximum economic home production of milk, both for liquid consumption and for manufacture.

Mr. Mills: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that further subsidisation of liquid milk upsets the whole allocation of milk for manufacturing purposes, and that if he continues with this policy —as I am afraid will happen— there will be a shortage of cheese, and butter production will be cut by about half in this country? This really is nonsense.

Mr. Buchan: Not quite so much nonsense as the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. The extent of the subsidy of milk, which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) supports, since he is all in favour of the consumer, will reflect only about 1 per cent. of the estimated increase in milk supplies. More cheese will be produced this year than last.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection about the fact that cheese is already in very short supply? One of the bigger grocers in my constituency informed me last weekend that cheese was no longer available to him from the creamery concerned because it had ceased producing cheese, owing to the shortage of milk.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know about a particular plant in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but if he has a case to raise I hope that he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I repeat: the outlook is as I have described it.

Mr. Swain: I should declare an interest. I have a window box in the upstairs window of my bungalow. Is my hon. Friend aware that three months before the demise of the Conservative Government there was a grave possibility, for the first time in the history of Great


Britain, of our having to import liquid milk for all purposes? As a result of the discussions which are now taking place between Ministers and the farmers, some confidence appears to have been restored among dairy farmers. The milk subsidy given to farmers as a propaganda stunt by the Conservative Government during the election was absorbed almost before it was given, by the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs.

Mr. Buchan: Judging by the reaction of Opposition Members to what my hon. Friend has said, that appears to be the case. What they are saying, in effect, is that the award they gave at the end of February was too late. By their present complaining on the matter they are also suggesting that it was too little.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) has said, there was never any likelihood of importing liquid milk. Does the Minister of State recall saying, not long ago, that if we did run short of cheese we could easily import it? Does not that fly right in the face of what the Minister of Agriculture himself says about wanting to grow as much agricultural produce in this country as possible?

Mr. Buchan: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his quote from but it is wrong. I pointed out that in previous years we had had to import cheese and other milk products, and that the same would apply this year. I have already given the House the prediction. If there is a shortage of milk it is not caused by the consumer subsidy, which affects about 1 per cent. of the increased uptake. If anything is going wrong it is because, as the Opposition now accept, the Conservative Government gave an insufficient award in February. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Beef Production

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will define what he considers to be unrealistic levels of market prices of beef given current costs of production.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate, on the last

convenient date, as to the loss sustained per animal, in the context of beef fattening, by a farmer marketing.

Mr. Buchan: The economics of beef production vary widely according to the methods employed. Precise assessments of profitability depend on individual circumstances.

Mr. Morrison: I hope that the House will excuse me if I do not declare at length my direct or indirect interest in the production of beef. Is not the present price level below that at which it is economic for farmers to produce? Is it not time the Minister faced up to the situation and stopped playing politics with the nation's beef supplies?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman. We are doing nothing of the kind. We gave a major injection to the beef industry following my right hon. Friend's discussions in Brussels in early March. It was a much-needed injection. Secondly, we have demonstrated our intention to act where necessary by doing what we did for pig production this week. We shall act if we need to.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the state of beef producers has never been worse than it is today? If he is not aware of it, will he and the Minister of Agriculture take an armoured car and come to Leicestershire with an escort and find out from the producers there what they think of the Government and their policies?

Mr. Buchan: As it happens, I visited Leicestershire a week ago and met a large number of farmers connected with the beef industry.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government will act if necessary. Is he aware that the size of the herd is falling considerably? Is that not against the national interest? Will he define the circumstances in which the need will arise? When will he act?

Mr. Buchan: According to the March livestock inquiry, the national breeding herd expanded by almost 4 per cent. in the previous 12 months, while the beef herd rose by 21 per cent. Admittedly, the dairy herd declined by 1.2 per cent. If the situation deteriorates we shall act. This week we have demonstrated our willingness to act.

Bacon Curing (Kent)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the principal bacon curing factory in Kent is closing down; and if he will take steps so that Kent butchers can continue to get their products cured.

Mr. Buchan: I have heard that a bacon factory in Kent has closed down. However, alternative bacon curing facilities are available.

Mr. Costain: That is an extraordinary answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one pig producer had to take some pigs about 50 miles in order to have them cured? This is against the interests of the pig, the pig producer and the consumer.

Mr. Buchan: We recognise that the local circumstances created transport difficulties for farmers, but there was little that the Government could do in the immediate situation. Action had been taken very quickly. We are sorry about the effect on pig producers. We are pleased that, partly by the assistance of others in the area, an alternative factory was found.

Beef (Import Duties)

Mr. James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what duties on beef imports from outside the EEC at present prevail.

Mr. Buchan: Imports of beef from developing Commonwealth countries are not subject to duty. Other Commonwealth imports are subject to duties at 8 per cent., while imports from third countries are subject to rates of up to 11 per cent. These charges are to an extent offset by monetary compensatory amounts in many cases.

Mr. James: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present state of affairs may be satisfactory from the point of view of consumers but is disastrous to home beef producers, and that, in consequence, home beef prices are bound to rise dramatically next year?

Mr. Buchan: Yes—if some of the worst predictions of certain hon. Members opposite are fulfilled, but I do not see much sign of that at the moment. I think the point of the hon. Gentleman's

supplementary question was the effect of imports upon beef prices, but I do not see the relationship between that and the question of increasing beef production in this country.

Mr. Hooley: Why does my hon. Friend not remove these duties and allow us to get back to the sensible agricultural policy we had before we entered the Common Market?

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend knows the answer to the first part of his supplementary question. In reply to the second part, I agree that from all sections of industry there has been increasing demand for a return to the deficiency payments system.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman join us in the European Parliament in trying to get annulled the order whereby if one imports meat from third countries one has to import an equivalent amount of European meat from cold stores? Will Labour Members join us in getting that restriction lifted?

Mr. Buchan: The British Government have an effective voice, in the shape of my right hon. Friend, in discussions in the Council of Ministers, where it is proper that he should make the case for Britain.

Live Animals: (Export for Slaughter)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in considering the findings of the O'Brien Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with interested parties regarding the export of live animals for slaughter following the report of the O'Brien Committee.

Mr. Beith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has so far made in his consultations with interested organisations and with Ministers of EEC countries on the report of the committee on the export of animals for slaughter; and by what date he hopes to have completed these consultations.

Mr. Moyle: We have invited interested parties to let us have comments on the committee's recommendations by 24th May and we shall study these carefully. Arrangements are in hand for discussions in the European Community. We shall reach conclusions as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that we shall not resume export licensing for animals for slaughter at least until the O'Brien Report has been debated.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman has been sitting on the report ever since he came into office, like a politically-motived broody hen. Is it not a fact that the committee found that the House was fundamentally misguided, and that hon. Members on the Government side were clearly politically motivated in banning the export of live animals last autumn on humanitarian grounds? In view of the damage that this is doing to the confidence of livestock producers, and its long-term detriment to the housewife, will the House be given the opportunity to reverse the decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Moyle: The House will be allowed to debate the issue as soon as possible, but I can hold out no hope for an early debate. I cannot accept that we have sat on the report. As soon as the report was available we started consultations, which are now about to end. We shall study them and produce our conclusions as quickly as possible and then we shall have a debate.

Mr. Beitb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he is not able to do that fairly soon the farming community will feel that he is deliberately delaying something which could help in the present difficult situation, and that those who are concerned with animal welfare will feel that he does not want to take the opportunity to do what the O'Brien Committee laid the ground for, namely, to build up a system of animal welfare safeguards across Europe?

Mr. Moyle: The House of Commons decided that there should be restraint on the export of live animals to the Continent. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that there are strong feelings on both sides on this issue. We think it is worth while taking a little time to get the matter right in the end.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Bearing in mind the fact that the difference in profit between the export of live animals and carcases is only marginal, and perhaps based on the deplorable conditions of European slaughterhouses, would it not be better to abolish this monstrous trade instead of subsidising it by appointing a gang of inspectors who may be as easily hoodwinked as the O'Brien Committee?

Mr. Moyle: I note my hon. Friend's comment, but having embarked on the road of consultation I think we had better see where that leads us before going elsewhere.

Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the animals involved are mature and specially bred for the European market, and that as that market is not now available the prices of these animals on the home market is disastrously low and is responsible for the tremendous fall in prices in the past few months?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman may take it that we are aware of the general effect of the situation by now.

Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that it is better for the House to reach a decision from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance as the House did in relation to the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the NFU is overwhelmingly in favour of the restrictions being lifted immediately? Does he not agree that overweight bullocks and barren cows have fetched extremely good prices in Europe and that it would help the beef and livestock sector very much if the ban could be lifted?

Mr. Moyle: I am all in favour of a decision being based upon knowledge rather than ignorance. I have never thought that the House of Commons was an ignorant body.

Livestock (Price Support)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now operate the Common Market mechanisms for price support in the livestock sector or otherwise introduce alternative mechanisms such as price guarantees or subsidies related to a feed formula.

Mr. Peart: I have already given substantial help to beef and pig producers, and I have now announced further help for pig producers in my reply to a Written Question to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain).— [Vol. 874, c. 199-200.]

Mr. Dixon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has now come for him to tell the British housewife the truth, and that unless she pays economic prices for food today her children and grandchildren may not have any food in five or 10 years' time?

Mr. Peart: I think that the Government are right to have direct subsidies on certain foods. This has been accepted. We have fulfilled an election pledge. At the same time, I believe that to stimulate our own home agriculture is important.

Mr. Tyler: To what extent is withdrawal of the lime and fertilisers subsidies having an effect on the cost of feeding livestock? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with five of my Liberal colleagues I went to meet the Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels yesterday and we were told that there had been no consultations with the EEC about this withdrawal—let alone its being caused by EEC regulations? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the lime and fertilisers subsidies should be restored to the full amounts?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows that these two subsidies were abolished by the previous administration. I am now under pressure to restore them. I know that many of my hon. Friends in touch with the farming industry would like to have the lime subsidy restored. I am considering the matter.

PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Ql. Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider including representatives from the Co-operative Movement and the Shop Stewards Committee of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders on the proposed Royal Commission on the Press so that alternative methods of ownership can be investigated.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have taken note of my hon.) Friend's suggestion. The membership of the Royal Commission has not yet been settled but I hope to make an announcement as early as possible after Parliament resumes.

Mr. Cryer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that at present the Press is owned by a tightly-knit group of politically motivated men and that both journalists and printers have the right to participate in ownership and control of newspapers in cases where capitalist owners have failed to keep them going? Should not the Royal Commission take this matter into account?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree 100 per cent. with what was contained 'in the beginning of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I cannot think that there was anything in it that cannot be dealt with by the Royal Commission.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime 1 Minister now indicate whether the Government intend to take any initiative or action on the position of Beaverbrook I Newspapers in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The hon. 'Gentleman, who has expressed great concern about this matter, will know that it I was not possible to avert the closure, for reasons which were explained to the House when this matter was discussed in the debate on the Press last week. The hon. Gentleman will also know that there has been a feasibility study on proposals for having a continuing newspaper in r Scotland, and I gather that those concerned are still examining the implications. As my right hon. Friend said in I the debate on the Press, we are prepared to discuss with those concerned any help which we can give.

PRESIDENT OF FRANCE

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now made any arrangements to meet the new President of France.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the
Prime Minister whether he has yet arranged an official meeting with the President of France.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 9th May, I look forward to maintaining close contact with the new President of France, but there are no immediate plans for a meeting.

Mr. Dalyell: What approach has been made to the French President on the subject of nuclear testing in the Pacific?

The Prime Minister: The new French President has not yet assumed office nor, indeed, has he appointed his Government. We shall, of course, hope to have very close relationships with him and his Government after he has assumed office and his Government have been appointed. As far as I know there is no declared decision on what the new Government will be. I cannot at the moment say what it would be right to say to a President not yet in office and a Government not yet formed on a matter about which there has been no French announcement.

Mr. Body: The Government have made it plain that they do not regard economic and monetary union as feasible, certainly not until the 1980s, but will the Prime Minister make it clear to the French President that the Government do not regard it as desirable?

The Prime Minister: Since the summit conference chaired by the previous President of France there has been a considerable cooling off on this matter on the part of most European nations, mainly on grounds of feasibility. There are some who do not think it is desirable.

LUXEMBOURG

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: In this age of registration may I ask my right hon. Friend, if he cannot get to Luxembourg, to send for a copy of the Luxembourg register to establish, each month, whether any money is drawn by Tories and Liberals who are members of the European Assembly by way of payments made at the end of each plenary session? Perhaps he will establish from President Berkhouwer, who instituted the inquiry, how many people were involved, the allegations that arise

therefrom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will he, finally—

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, why is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) allowed to ask questions which are longer than those which other hon. Members are allowed to ask?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for me. Interruptions from the other side of the House merely prolong the question. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has said "finally" and I hope that he means it.

Mr. Skinner: Finally, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to give me the type of answer I have been receiving on this matter from the Minister of State, to the effect that there has not been any scandal, when the pro-Market "Top People's" paper has been reporting the facts at some length?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen any suggestion that Opposition Members have been involved in the problems to which the President of the Assembly drew attention. Indeed, I seem to recollect the President's saying that he was not referring to anyone from the United Kingdom. Attendance allowances are paid in accordance with the rules of the Assembly. They are paid out of Community funds. If my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, has any idea that money which ultimately, in part, comes from this country is being abused I hope that they will let me or my right hon. Friend have the evidence. Certainly, if my hon. Friend has any idea that any hon. Members of this House are doing this I am sure he will bring such evidence as he may have to the appropriate authority in the House.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the time has now come in the lifetime of this Parliament when he should use the moral authority which attaches to his high office to bring to an end the endless muck-raking which has become a symptom of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I tried to do so in the speech I made in Glasgow a week last Sunday—a speech which was the subject of many Questions this Tuesday. I would not say that I was 100 per cent, successful.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in that speech he tried to associate the affair of which he disapproves, quite rightly, with one side of the House? Is he aware that we welcome the fact that he has now repudiated muck-raking from his own side?

The Prime Minister: The question was put to me and I asked for evidence. The same would apply to any hon. Member of the House on any issue where there is a suspicion that people have behaved improperly, whether in local or national government. They should give their evidence to the appropriate authorities— the authorities of this House, the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, or the police, wherever there has been an allegation of corruption.

DERBYSHIRE

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Derbyshire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Rost: Will the Prime Minister answer a question which is being asked in Derbyshire—by those dependent upon Rolls-Royce—as well as in the rest of the country wherever people are concerned about defence and engineering export orders? Who gave the Government the mandate to order the cancellation of commercial contracts between private companies and overseas customers? Does streaking into Downing Street with a minority vote empower the Prime Minister to put at risk vast sections of British industry and export orders? When will he stop taking his orders from Mr. Hugh Scanlon and have the guts to stand up for British interests?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked me by whose authority this was done. These matters were in issue during the election. I spoke about them. We received that authority. As for the point about Rolls-Royce workers in Derby, or elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed what I said the other day about the number of workers involved. I think that the work involved represents about 01 per cent. of the turnover of Rolls-Royce. There is no reason

to think that future orders have been imperilled here, except in the case of Chile and South Africa, on which I very clearly answered a question put to me the other day. Turning to Mr. Scanlon —one day we shall get through Questions without hon. Gentlemen revealing their bogy man obsession on this matter—I referred to the fact that we were already dealing with the question of Chilean engines before any statement was made by Mr. Scanlon or anyone else in the trade union movement.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has not asked Rolls-Royce workers in Derby whether they support their colleagues in East Kilbride, who refused to do work which would have meant supplying these weapons to a Government of murderers? Does he also accept that in Derby, as elsewhere, we know a moral issue when we see it, and know those without moral principles when we see them?

The Prime Minister: That is my impression of the workers at Derby, from meetings I have held with my hon. Friend and his colleagues who represent Derby.

Mr. Rost: That is not what they told me.

Mr. Russell Kerr: You have not spoken to them.

The Prime Minister: As I tried to make clear last week—I certainly have more respect for the hon. Member than I have for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who put a similar question—we must not, I hope, get the impression from the Opposition that they hate Hugh Scanlon more than they hate the murderous Chilean regime.

Mr. Peyton: Leaving Mr. Scanlon out of the question—and I do not believe that he is particularly relevant—has the Prime Minister any real grounds for differentiating between the Allende régime in Chile and the present one?

Mr. Kinnock: There are 15,000 of them.

The Prime Minister: I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. It is an improvement


on last time. I think that the answer to it is in the form of the many thousands of people who have been murdered by the present régime.

Mr. Peyton: The Prime Minister has not answered my question. Has he any grounds at all for excusing the Allende r régime of the crimes of which he now accuses the present r régime?

The Prime Minister: I thought I had answered that question. In case I was not clear, the answer is that the differentiation is twofold. First, there is the large number of people who have been murdered and terrorised by this Chilean junta. Second, President Allende was elected, but this r régime was not.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, whatever may be the consequences, in terms of job losses, of the cancellation of the contracts with Chile and South Africa, they are as nothing compared with the job losses which would have occurred if the previous Government had not made a complete U-turn and decided to nationalise a private industry to preserve jobs?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I feel that my right hon. Friend's question, which was more to the point than some of the other supplementaries, seems to be as far from Derbyshire and the Derby workers as the question put by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).

Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman now clarify for the House the issue of principle on which the Government have reached their decision? Will he explain the difference between halting the servicing of existing aircraft engines supplied by Rolls-Royce and the supply of spares, yet continuing to build frigates and submarines for the regime about which he has used such unparliamentary language? Is the issue of principle the fact that other countries can service Rolls-Royce engines and supply spares but only we can build frigates and submarines?

The Prime Minister: I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman the point about the decision on the frigates, which was announced by my right hon. Friend. The work on those has been substantially completed. Three of the frigates have, I think, been handed over to the Chilean authorities. It would raise very many

deep questions of international law if we were to send boarding parties to take them over. Many of them are already on exercises. As for the submarines, I thought that the last word on those was pronounced by an AUEW member last week, quoted in "Sayings of the Week" in the Observer, who said:
If it is alleged that submarines can be used against Chilean workers, they must have sanguinary big drains in Chile.
That is the answer about the submarines, which are now nearing completion.
The work on aero-engines is not being done anyway, because the workers will not do it. We are still a long way from Derbyshire. Where work on aero-engines has been completed, the engines will be returned to their owners—the Chilean Government. There is no suggestion that they should not be. Where the work has not been done, in-service engines will be returned.

Mr. Heath: May we take it that the Government's policy is that the Government are perfectly prepared to supply weapons which cannot be used for internal repression against the workers—for example, frigates, submarines and other forms of arms?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not studied this situation. To keep in order, if the right hon. Gentleman will talk to the workers in Derby he will get the answer. I was referring to work which has been done —past contracts. We announced at the beginning of April that no more arms contracts will be signed with Chile. That makes utter nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. There will be no more arms sales to Chile. We have explained the position with regard to the ships and the submarines, work on which is now largely completed.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the recent exchange the Leader of the Opposition accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of using unparliamentary language, as will appear in the record tomorrow. I believe that it is in your discretion to decide what is and what is not unparliamentary language. Can it be that the Leader of the Opposition, like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)


and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), is so anxious to get his hands on blood money that he seeks to use that ploy to question my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: I do not detect a point of order.

PRICE SISTERS

Mr. Stallard: Mr. Stallard(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Price sisters.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): As the
House will be aware, the Price sisters were sentenced to life imprisonment and to concurrent sentences of 20 years' imprisonment in November 1973 for their role in the bomb outrages at the Old Bailey and elsewhere.
They have been on hunger strike in Brixton prison since December last. This action has been a matter of grave concern not only to the medical and other staff at the prison but, I believe, to hon. Members on both sides of the House. But the view has long been taken that a prison medical officer would be neglecting the duty laid upon him by Parliament if he let the health of a prisoner in his charge on hunger strike be endangered without attempting to help. Accordingly, the decision to feed a prisoner compulsorily has always been regarded as a medical matter for the judgment of the responsible doctor. It is on this basis of medical judgment that artificial feeding of the Price sisters began on 3rd December 1973 and continued until Saturday 18th May.
Although the procedure is commonly described as forcible feeding, it depends in practice on a certain minimal degree of co-operation from the subjects. The medical officers have decided that the degree of non co-operation that the sisters had displayed in the previous few days made it dangerous to continue with the feeding at present. The sisters remain under close medical supervision and will continue to receive all possible care and attention.

Mr. Stallard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. Will he accept that I am in no way condoning

the crimes committed? On grounds of humanity and compassion, and for good security reasons, does my right hon. Friend believe, as I believe, that these prisoners should be transferred to Northern Ireland? Is he aware that many transfers have taken place from Northern Ireland to this country and that there are precedents? Great distress and hardship is being unnecessarily inflicted on the relatives of these prisoners.
Will my right hon. Friend answer two short questions? First, may I infer from his remarks that it is now to be Home Office policy to allow hunger-striking prisoners in British prisons to die rather than to force feed them? Secondly, in the name of humanity and compassion, and for sound security reasons, will my right hon. Friend consider the transfer of these prisoners to Northern Ireland to complete their sentences?

Mr. Jenkins: On the first of the two specific questions which my hon. Friend asked—is it now Home Office policy to allow prisoners to die rather than to force feed?—I point out again that, firstly, the decision has been, is, and should be a matter of medical judgment. It is not subject to a direction from me or from the Home Office. Secondly, the decision not to continue at present with compulsory feeding, which was taken on Sunday, was based not on a policy of allowing the prisoners to die but on a fear of the dangers involved in continuing with compulsory feeding in the new circumstances.
In reply to the second part of the supplementary question on transfer to Northern Ireland, I indicated in the letter which I wrote to my noble Friend Lord Brockway in March—which was widely publicised at the time—that I would keep this matter under review and that when in the course of a few months a decision for a transfer from Brixton became necessary in any event I would consider that on a combination of compassionate and security considerations, weighing both together. I do not think that at the present time in present circumstances I could add to the burdens of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by asking him to accept them in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate the difficulty


of the decisions that he has to take in this case, and that we very much support the spirit of what he said in the last sentence or two of his supplementary answer. Will he make absolutely clear that he will not be influenced by any form of coercion and that, in any decision whether, when and where to move the Price sisters, the paramount consideration must be security?

Mr. Jenkins: I have made clear that 1 will have regard to both legitimate compassionate and security considerations. I do not think that it would be right for any Home Secretary to decide dispositions of prisoners under duress.

Mr. Russell Kerr: With a matter as politically sensitive as this, does the Home Secretary not agree that it is dangerous to leave the power of decision exclusively in medical hands?

Mr. Jenkins: Decisions about the movement of the prisoners are, of course, not in medical hands. The decision as to exactly when to give compulsory feeding must be a medical judgment, and I would hesitate greatly before I said that any layman should attempt to issue directions even if it were possible.

Mr. Biffen: If at some future date the Home Secretary considers transferring the Price sisters to Northern Ireland, will he give an undertaking that he will first have consultations with Mr. Faulkner and with the SDLP member of the Executive?

Mr. Jenkins: The position is as stated in my published letter to Lord Brockway to which I have referred. By the very nature of the case there would have to be the closest consultations between myself and my right hon. Friend, but I think that my right hon. Friend would be the correct channel of communication with the other two gentlemen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary accept that the majority of people in this country consider that he has a duty to ensure that the British public is protected from the Price sisters, that he should use his discretion in that way, and that their interest in wanting to be in Ireland should have been thought of when they first came here to carry out their activities? Does he further accept that there is an increasing

number of us who are doubtful about forced feeding and would like this practice to be reviewed, and that many of us feel that if people refuse to take food in prison it is their business and they must take the consequences?

Mr. Jenkins: I note what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. As for the second part of his remarks, there are considerable difficulties about the whole process of compulsory feeding. There are many countries which do not use the process, and I believe it is correct to say that it is not used in either Northern or Southern Ireland. The position when I came into office was that compulsory feeding was taking place, and I did not think it right to call off that process in the middle. On the wider question, I think it is a matter for consideration whether compulsory feeding is a process which serves a useful purpose; but this is not the time to consider that matter in relation to this particular case.

Mrs. Renée Short: May I make it clear that I do not condone anything that these two girls have done, but could I press my right hon. Friend in terms of his statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I wish you would shut up with your stupid interruptions. May I ask my right hon. Friend, as a reforming and compassionate Home Secretary, whether he does not think that forced feeding should now be banished completely from our penal system? Is he aware that over 50 years ago we were force feeding suffragettes and that it is astonishing that this process still takes place in our prisons? Will he therefore, irrespective of pressure in this particular case, consider whether he should decide that since this is a distasteful procedure—distasteful for prisoners and for doctors and prison officials who have to administer it —it should be banished from British prisons?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course it is a distasteful process, and nobody is in the slightest doubt about that. The question at issue is whether the alternative is not still more difficult to accept. I have indicated that I am willing to look at the broader question of compulsory feeding, but our problem at the moment is not that forced feeding is continuing but that temporarily at least it has had to cease.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for the first week after the recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 10th June—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 11th June—There will be a debate on Europe, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Welfare of Livestock Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 12th June—Remaining stages of the Prices Bill.
THURSDAY 13th June—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 14th June—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for acceding to a request which I believe will be of benefit to the whole House, that we should be able to debate the subject of Europe immediately following our return from the Whit-sun Recess, on Tuesday, after the Foreign Secretary has made his statement on 4th June. We very much appreciate what the Leader of the House has done.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman undertook last week to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the question of deferment of part of the 1973 Act. When will it be possible to debate that matter?

Mr. Short: I am not yet able to tell the House when that debate will take place, but there will be a debate on this subject and we shall discuss the date through the usual channels.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As my right hon. Friend knows, yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) obtained leave to bring in a Bill to outlaw hare coursing. This has been done many times and has always foundered on Second Reading "on the nod". It will do so

again if the measure has to be read a Second time "on the nod". Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider giving Government time to this most necessary Bill?

Mr. Short: There are two Fridays left for this sort of matter. We will see how things go and perhaps we can look at the subject again after that time.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not true— I hardly believe it can be true—that it is intended to do away with the State reserve pension scheme and overrule the expressed will of the House without opportunity for debate? Will he tell the House when there will be opportunity for a debate on this subject?

Mr. Short: The existing rule does not require a debate in this House, as J said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I have undertaken to have a debate in the House, although I repeat that a debate is not required.

Mr. Palmer: As my right hon. Friend knows, an important decision will soon be taken on the future of the Concorde project. Will he arrange for a full day's debate before any decision is taken?

Mr. Short: The Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter, nor are we likely to do so in the next few weeks. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Farr: Will any conclusion be reached during the recess about our next generation of nuclear reactors? If so, how will that information be communicated to the House and when will the House be told what the decision will be?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be making a statement on this matter in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday to the effect that the Labour Government do not have the guts to govern, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has had a request from the Opposition for a day after the recess on which to debate any motion of censure on the Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that


what is worse than a Government without the guts to govern is an Opposition without the guts to do anything about it?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, there has been no request on those lines, and we should certainly welcome one.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What progress has been made with the intelligent suggestion contained in the Queen's Speech in respect of assistance to minority parties? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the refusal of one Opposition party of such help should not be any ground on which to hold up that assistance?

Mr. Short: The proposal in the Queen's Speech was that we should look at the question of assistance to Opposition parties. We are doing that. I have had discussions with the Scottish National Party and with all parties in the House. We are considering this matter and hope to bring forward a proposal after the Summer Recess.

Mr. David Young: Will my right hon. Friend say what has been done so far about an early debate on the North-West Strategic Plan, which he agreed to consider on 9th May?

Mr. Short: I have this matter in mind, but I am afraid it is not possible to have a debate in the week following the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Mather: Will the Leader of the House confirm or deny reports in the Daily Mirror this morning that if there is to be a General Election in July or August those on holiday in Wakes Weeks will be allowed a delayed vote?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked officials to study the problems involved in having a summer election and to look at the precedents.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 133, and, in view of the serious views expressed in that motion, will he find time as soon as Parliament reassembles after the Whitsun Recess for the House to have a full debate on this important topic?

[That this House, whilst wishing to make it absolutely clear it has no intention

of conducting a witch hunt against any named or unnamed persons, nevertheless rejects the Report of the Security Commission dated July 1973 (Command Paper No. 5367), and expresses grave concern that the Security Commission failed to interview vital witnesses, including journalists involved in the original expose, all of whom were indispensible to an adequate investigation; moreover, in view of the continuing concern that an early warning by the security service may not have been speedily acted upon by the then Head of the Security Service, calls for an investigation into all the circumstances leading up to the Commission's Report in order that the public may be assured that no attempt at a cover-up occurred in what is accepted as having been a serious potential security-risk.]

Mr. Short: I noticed that motion, and it is the sort of topic which my hon. Friend could raise in the debate which is to follow business questions.

Mr. Tom King: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any request from the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement about his proposals for a national enterprise board? If not, could the Leader of the House find out why there has not been a request since there has appeared in newspapers a full statement of the Secretary of State's proposals? Does not the Leader of the House appreciate the damaging impact of these proposals on industries' investment plans and, since the Secretary of State for Industry never ceases to emphasise the importance of Parliament, does not his delay in making a statement amount to a contempt of the House?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. This was an internal party document which was discussed at one of the continuing series of meetings between the Labour Party and the TUC. My right hon. Friend will be producing a Green Paper before very long.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System concerning young adult offenders, with its novel proposals for care and custody orders?

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy for this. I cannot consider it


for the week after the recess, but I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Fell: Bearing in mind last night's somewhat extraordinary decision to set up a Select Committee on Members' interests, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say, first, when he will be able to announce the membership of the Select Committee and, second, when he can give the House some idea how long it will have to report, since there have been various rumours flying around?

Mr. Short: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the names will be put down today and the House will be asked to approve them tomorrow so that the Select Committee may start work immediately after the recess.
There was no specified time in the resolution, but it asked the Committee to report as early as possible on matters relating to Members' interests. As I said in the debate, I hope very much that the Committee will report in time for the House to be able to reach a final decision on this matter before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the provisions of the Porthmadog Harbour Revision Order, as laid down in Early-Day Motion No. 139, since it provides for a scandalous trampling over the rights of the ordinary citizen by the wealthy and vested interests of the country?
[That the Porthmadog Harbour Revision Order 1974, dated 8th February 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be annulled.]

Mr. Short: This is a complicated matter, but I will look at it to see whether time can be found to debate it.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we are likely to have an early debate on the steel industry, bearing in mind especially all the uncertainty that exists in that vital industry at the moment following the investment and closure programme announcements of the previous administration?

Mr. Short: I cannot find time for a debate in the week after the recess, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Industry will be making a statement today or tomorrow.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Although the Leader of the House has been courteous enough to answer my letter about the delayed Privilege matter raised by the Secretary of State for Industry, I have not heard from the Secretary of State himself. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how we can straighten out this position where an outside body is precluded from following its legal rights because of a quirk in the procedures of this House?

Mr. Short: The way to resolve the difficulty would be for my right hon. Friend to put down a motion to refer the matter back to the Committee of Privileges, and I hope that this will be done in the near future.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an irresponsible programme was put out by BBC Television on Tuesday evening linking the cause of heart disease with the consumption of natural foods like butter, cheese, eggs, etc., and that yesterday morning, immediately following that programme, most of our national newspapers carried a full-page spread—it happened to be a Unilever advertisement—linking that programme with it? I refer my right hon. Friend to yesterday's edition of The Times for example. I feel that there is some collusion between Unilever and the BBC. In view of the fact that it is necessary for Members of this House to declare their interests, does not my right hon. Friend feel that BBC producers and other executives should declare their interests? Will he investigate this matter and make a statement immediately after the recess?

Mr. Short: It will give me great pleasure to refer my hon. Friend's words to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Adley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his remark just now to the effect that there will be no statement about Concorde for a few weeks lies ill on the minds of many thousands of Concorde workers whose shop stewards are demonstrating in London today? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Industry to come to the House immediately after the recess to let us know exactly what is going on?

Mr. Short: The House will understand that this matter has been greatly delayed by the elections in France and the necessity to appoint a new Government there. I was trying to help the House when I said that the Government had not reached a decision and were not likely to in the next few weeks.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the general concern on both sides of the House which is reflected in Early-Day Motions Nos. 94, 95, 119 and 134, about the inadequacies of the rating system and the effect that it is having on constituents such as mine? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate so that we may advise the Secretary of State for the Environment of our views on rating reform before he begins negotiations with the local authority associations later this year?

[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to clarify the existing law so that householders who are not connected to a public sewage disposal system are not compelled to pay rates for that service from which they arc excluded.]

[That this House believes that, following the reorganisation of local government, there is an urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to set up a working party to examine methods of completely reshaping local government finance, including the abolition of the rating system.]

[That this House calls upon the Government to examine urgently the present rating system with a view to replacing rates with a local income tax, or reducing the rate burden by making education a national exchequer responsibility.]

[That this House, recognising that the rates demands issued to domestic ratepayers for 1974 imposes upon such ratepayers an intolerable burden, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to introduce a supplementary estimate for this year specifically related to the domestic element in the rates support grant; to inform the local authorities of the extent of the subvention so that such ratepayers can be immediately granted relief from that part of the rates demand so represented by the supplementary estimate; furthermore asks that persons whose domestic premises are not linked to a main sewerage scheme

shall not be called upon to pay any sewerage charges whatsoever; moreover calls for the abolition of the present "Notional Rent" basis of rating and the substitution of the present system by one of either a direct local income tax or by an addition to and an apportionment of the present income tax payments for the financing of local government services; and, in accepting that some delay might occur in the introduction of such a system, calls upon the Government to bear the full cost of education and welfare services in the meantime.]

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy with that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at this matter very actively at present.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman accord a higher priority to a debate on the Strategic Study on the North-West than appeared from his original answer? Is he aware that many hon. Members representing North-West constituencies regard this strategy as a disaster, concentrating as it does on the Manchester-Merseyside axle to the exclusion of other worthy parts of the North-West, and that we should like a chance to express our opinions?

Mr. Short: I have said on a number of occasions that this is an extremely important report. I have now read it, and I agree that it is very valuable. I have not promised a debate on it. It is a regional matter. But I said that I would see what I could do later this summer.

Mr. George Lawson: Unless lam mistaken, my right hon. Friend did not say that there was to be a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on land use. Nor did he say that he intended in the first week after the House re-assembles to announce the setting up of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Can my right hon. Friend explain the delay on both these matters and assure us that we shall see action on both of them as soon as we come back after the recess?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is not mistaken. I did not mention either of those matters. I will bear in mind what he says.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on. A great many hon. Members wish to speak on the Adjournment motion, and before we come to that we are to have a statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will, with permission, make a statement. I must express regret for its length, but it deals with matters arising from, or connected with, the Sunningdale Agreement, which, as the House will know, left a number of matters for later resolution. I am sure that I should inform the House fully of the developing situation regarding the Council of Ireland, policing, detention and the report of the Law Enforcement Commission.
The House will be aware that the Northern Ireland Executive issued last night a statement on the basis upon which it is prepared to proceed in relation to a Council of Ireland. The proposals that it put forward have emerged from lengthy discussions which have taken place over a period of many weeks within the Northern Ireland Administration. I am making arrangements to have this statement placed in the Library of the House.
I have, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, welcomed this statement which provides a realistic and sensible basis on which the North and South of Ireland can work together. The proposals now put forward carefully protect the interests of both communities and are consistent with the overriding requirement in the Constitution Act that there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. It is good sense that there should be institutions in Ireland as a whole so that the people there work together in co-operation with one another in the interest of all.
The Sunningdale Agreement also provided for a limited, and carefully defined, rôle for a Council of Ministers in relation to policing. In particular, Her Majesty's Government undertook that appointments to the Northern Ireland police authority would be made after consultation with the Northern Ireland

Executive, which would consult the Council of Ministers. I propose to lay before the House immediately after the recess an order reconstituting the police authority. In addition, steps have been taken to set up an all-party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland with particular reference to the need to achieve public identification with the police. That committee will meet shortly.
At Sunningdale, Her Majesty's Government gave a firm commitment to bring detention to an end in Northern Ireland for all sections of the community as soon as the security situation permits. That remains Her Majesty's Government's policy and, alongside this urgent thought is being given to the best way in which persons released from detention can be helped to re-establish themselves in their local communities.
The problem of fugitive offenders was left unresolved at Sunningdale and, following the conference, Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government jointly set up a commission to advise them on the most effective means, from a legal point of view, of bringing to justice fugitive political offenders in Ireland. The commission completed its work and presented its report to both Governments on 25th April. I have today laid the report before the House, and copies are available in the Vote Office.
I should like, first of all, to place on record my gratitude, and the gratitude of the House, to the members of the commission for the care, skill and speed with which they performed their complex task.
Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government reaffirm the view expressed by all parties at Sunningdale that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. Agreement has been reached by both Governments on the action to be taken on the commission's report and a statement in similar terms is also being made to the Daily this afternoon by the Irish Minister for Justice.
The commission considered, but rejected, the establishment of mixed courts comprising judges from Northern


Ireland and the Republic and also, as not offering a practicable immediate solution, the setting up of an all-Ireland court. The commission agreed that it would be legally feasible to confer power on the courts in both parts of Ireland so that the courts in each part would be able to try certain specified crimes wherever in Ireland they were committed. All the members recommended this as a method which could be introduced quickly. The United Kingdom members made it clear that they would have preferred the extradition solution, but the members from the Republic could not advise that an agreement or legislation purporting to extradite fugitive political offenders would be valid under the Irish Constitution.
Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government have accepted the agreed recommendation contained in the report and, whilst retaining existing extradition arrangements, will introduce reciprocal legislation so that the courts in each part of Ireland will have jurisdiction to try under their own domestic law certain offences wherever committed in Ireland. It is a matter of regret to Her Majesty's Government that the commission disagreed about the legality of amending the Irish extradition law, but it is clear from the report that all the members of the commission are confident that the extension of jurisdiction is not open to any valid objection in law.
The effect of this proposed legislation will be that in future those suspected of having committed certain specified terrorist offences in Northern Ireland but who have escaped to the Republic can be tried in the Republic, and those similarly suspected of such crimes in the Republic who have escaped to the North can be tried in Northern Ireland. The existence of the legislation should in itself deter those who commit such crimes in one part of Ireland from seeking refuge in the other part. It will remain open to both Governments to continue to seek extradition whenever they consider it appropriate as a means of dealing with fugitive offenders and, where extradition is sought but not achieved and sufficient evidence is available, prosecution will be undertaken by the authorities of the part of Ireland in which the alleged offender is.
The two Governments have agreed that there will be the closest co-operation

between the police forces in the investigation of offences.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Irish Attorney-General have agreed that there will need to be the closest co-operation between the two Attorneys-General and their staff in conducting prosecutions based primarily or wholly on evidence obtained in the other jurisdiction and that this presents no difficulties which cannot and will not be overcome.
The two Governments have also agreed to accept the proposals in the report that special security arrangements should be made to encourage witnesses to travel into the other jurisdiction to give evidence, and to include in their respective legislation provisions to enable, in cases where witnesses are unwilling to travel, evidence to be taken on commission in the presence of the court, and of the accused if he wishes, in the way in which the commission recommended.
I am confident that the agreement 1 have announced today will be an important contribution towards bringing to trial those responsible for terrorism in Ireland. Equally important, however, is the prevention of acts of terrorism and the apprehension of those who are responsible. Both Governments believe that there is scope for improving border security to deter terrorists from exploiting the border and to increase the prospects of catching those who do, and I shall very shortly be meeting Mr. Coeney, the Irish Minister for Justice, to discuss what can be done to improve further the existing co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border.
The tragic strike, which affects the life and welfare of every ordinary man and woman in Northern Ireland, must be in the forefront of all our minds. But this must not deter us from proceeding with measures which offer the best hope for the future of Northern Ireland and to which I have referred in the statement.

Mr. Pym: The House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the information that he has given to us, but in some ways I regret the length of statement because it touches on a range of complex and important matters for Northern Ireland which, frankly, it is impossible to deal with by question and answer. Indeed,


I do not think that I could possibly do justice to all of them in what I am about to say. Therefore, I shall restrict myself to three main matters.
First, the Council of Ireland, now that the parties in the Executive have agreed about the handling of the Council of Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and his colleagues, every member of the Executive and all members of the Assembly have a tremendous job in communicating the realities and truth about the Council of Ireland to the people of Northern Ireland? There are, and always were, cast iron safeguards built into the Council of Ireland, but we know that doubts were cast upon those safeguards by some people.
It seems that the aspects to which many people in Northern Ireland took objection have now been postponed until after the Assembly elections. Therefore, I should have thought that this was a crucially important opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman and the Executive to mount a major campaign to ensure that there was no further misunderstanding about what was intended, what was implied, and what was to happen.
Secondly, on the Law Enforcement Commission, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the process that he has agreed to will be quick enough in dealing with fugitive offenders? Will he tell us something more about the security of witnesses, which I suspect will be a problem when crossing the border comes into it? Is it not a major disappointment that the members from the Republic should have advised that it is possible that a change in the extradition law might not be valid under the Irish constitution? Will he press the Republic of Ireland to have a further look at this point, because, as he will know, the people of Northern Ireland feel that a change here would be the most helpful contribution that could be made?
Finally, on the strike, the right hon. Gentleman yesterday gave a categoric and firm reassurance about the maintenance of essential services. We know that what has happened in the past 24 hours has resulted in a deterioration of the situation, and the House will wish to be reassured that the right hon. Gentleman will take whatever action is necessary.
I have no doubt that shortly after answering questions on the statement the right hon. Gentleman will be leaving for Northern Ireland again. I believe that here, too, a tremendous job of communication is involved between this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and the people of Northern Ireland. There must be channels of communication so that everyone understands what is being done and what is happening and can feel reassured that the present critical situation will come to an end at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Rees: The length of my statement, which was largely on the Law Enforcement Commission's Report, was necessary. A similar statement is being made in the Dail. There will be legislation after the recess, when we can put our minds to the question. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated, by the number of questions that he put to me, that if my statement had not been so long, the number of questions would have been greater. I wanted to make clear my view about the Law Enforcement Commission which is extremely important.
The Council of Ireland is a matter for the Executive and the Government in the South. Of course there is a public relations job to be done. It is extremely difficult in Northern Ireland at the moment, but it must be done.
There is no question of the Government of the South looking again at law enforcement. I went to the South to discuss extradition only recently. 1'he Government there made it clear that such was the nature of their constitution that, if they had introduced legislation, anyone who had taken a case to the courts almost certainly would have had an application for extradition turned down.
The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall take steps in connection with the strike and the maintenance of essential services. It is a matter of regret to me that certain Members of this House should attempt to set up a provisional Government in Northern Ireland by issuing their own ration books, and so on, and then come here and draw pay as democrats. That makes me a little sick.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there is general support for what he said, there is profound and increasing distress in this country at the developing catastrophe in Northern Ireland? There is a growing belief, rightly or wrongly, that people in Northern Ireland are committed to one extreme or the other and are not in favour of the moderate solution being put forward by Her Majesty's Government.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the strike by those who call themselves loyalists is bitterly resented by the overwhelming majority of people in this country? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were a total physical and economic withdrawal from the Province, the consequences for all Ireland would be disastrous?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend's last statement sums up the situation. Even from what one sees now, and knowing the number of guns that there are in the North, one knows that if that happened, there would be serious consequences.
Yesterday, I expressed my view of the word "loyalist". The elections of a year ago showed that there was a majority of moderates in Northern Ireland. My job is to deal with the security situation so that the moderates will be able to stand up and speak without being afraid of being dealt with by the bully boys and subjected to intimidation of the vilest sort. It is very difficult to be a moderate in Northern Ireland at present. Our job is to help those who are.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State name the Members of this House who have set up a provisional Government in Northern Ireland and issued ration books? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot name them, will he withdraw his accusations against hon. Members? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no Member of this House has at any time made any such suggestion; nor have ration books been issued in the name of any provisional Government in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to get the facts before he uses the Dispatch Box in the way he has used it this afternoon?
May I ask a question about the essential services? Is it not a fact that on the radio today the chief medical officer

of the Department of Health and Social' Services paid a tribute to the strikers, who have guaranteed essential supplies to hospitals and who have facilitated the hospitals in getting such supplies?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the head of the Department of Health and Social Services—that is, Mr. Devlin—said that he would not make any attempt to get these essential supplies through the strikers and yet his chief medical officer made it clear that hospitals were being supplied, that no patient had been denied surgery and that no patient had died as a result of the strike?
Is it not true that when the workers met the Minister of State, they said that they were prepared to go into the power stations and put 60 per cent. of the power on the grid without payment, provided that that power was used for essential services, and that their offer was denied?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked about five questions, and that is enough.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I speak for the people of Northern Ireland, and I want to ask one final question. When will the Secretary of State meet the strikers and talk to them?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has taken me to task for what I said. He meets daily the people who seek to bring down the Government of Northern Ireland. He meets daily organisations consisting of people who are seeking to bring down the system of government in Northern Ireland that was agreed by both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that permit cards are being issued in Northern Ireland by those with whom he associates. The hon. Gentleman cannot have double standards and be a democrat here and a demagogue in Northern Ireland. I find distasteful his attempt to stand up as a "loyalist", to use the words of the Queen, and that sort of thing.
The hon. Gentleman and some of his friends are attempting to bring down the elected Government which this country set up under the Constitution Act, and the hon. Gentleman now asks whether I will negotiate with his friends, whether


I will negotiate about the supply of electricity, and whether I will give into them about the Sunningdale Agreement. My responsibility is to the House and not to the sort of people with whom the hon. Gentleman is associating, people who are backed by para-military groups with arms and ammunition. That is the sort of man the hon. Gentleman is. He is making a mockery of the Christianity that I learned.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all concerned about the undermining of authority in Northern Ireland and that I therefore welcome the strong words that he has just used?
Is he aware that, among the many disappointments, and, for some, the heartbreaks of the past few days, what we regret most is the problem that has arisen over the Council of Ireland? We welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as representing some faltering steps towards getting agreement between both sides in Ireland, if only to deal with murderers and other people who offend the good taste and good living of others, whether they be Catholic or Protestant?
If the Unionists who support Mr. Faulkner cannot get support at present for a Council of Ireland, in view of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), despite whatever educational processes are undertaken, can we reasonably expect that people will be prepared to support that concept and go for an election on it in four years' time?

Mr. Rees: With regard to the Council of Ministers and the Council of Ireland; the arrangements under Section 12 of the Constitution Act are a matter for the Executive. The Executive has a mind and a will of its own, and it knows that any arrangement it makes has to be passed by the Assembly. The Executive knows best the possibility of getting things through the Assembly. Indeed, that was the intention at the Sunningdale meeting in December.
The two bodies have worked together. The Executive has come out with this agreement and, as I have often said in Northern Ireland, whatever works there is ultimately for the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that

that is the only way in which we can proceed. The solution cannot be imposed from here.

Mr. Harry West: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement yesterday in no way allayed the fears of those in Northern Ireland who are entirely against the Sunningdale arrangement? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement about policing and the arrangements for the police are strongly objected to by the majority in Northern Ireland who resent any interference in police affairs by a foreign country? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is nothing less than a moral obligation on a neighbouring State to introduce extradition, even to the extent of amending its constitution, so that fugitive offenders may be brought to justice?
Further, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that not all parties were invited to the discussions at Sunningdale? Only those parties known to be in favour of the Constitution Act were invited to the discussions at Sunningdale, and the majority of the majority were left out.

Mr. Rees: I am fully aware of the fears of the people of the North about Sunningdale. I still think that if people looked at it carefully, they would see that many of their fears were groundless. Sadly, many people work on the fears, so that people do not understand what Sunningdale is about.
As for policing and the police authority, the police authority and the police will be firmly under the control of the individual Governments. It is right that there should be co-operation; indeed, there is some co-operation now. On fugitive offenders, the important thing is to deal with the matter. There are about 30 people involved, I think, over the past three or four years. That is important, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that I have announced security meetings is, I think, in many respects of greater importance.
Co-operation about security and the police is very important, as, for example, when it was found out that the cars which had exploded in Dublin the other day had emanated from the North. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important to find out where the people came from, to see whether they


are back in the North. I can hardly believe that anyone would support what those people did, or, the other way round, what many people who have come from the South have done in the North. It is very important to deal with that on a practical basis, and that is what I seek.

Sir G. de Freitas: Reverting to the use of the word "loyalist"; can my right hon. Friend confirm that neither the Government nor Government agencies will again use the word "loyalist" to describe organised law-breaking in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: I can give an assurance about that. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that it is a self-styled title in most cases. We must sec, but I give that assurance.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I feel it right now to break what has been my self-imposed silence ever since I left Northern Ireland? Would he agree that this is a time, above everything else, to do everything we can to communicate, to allay unjustified fears and to exercise moderation? Would he not agree that, in those circumstances, it is very important to make it clear to everyone that nothing that has been said in the Sunningdale Agreement, in the Constitution Act, or in anything else, implies any sort of surrender of the North to a united Ireland, but quite the reverse?
Would it not be helpful to everybody in Northern Ireland if now the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would admit what he knows to be true— that what is said in the Constitution Act and everything that has been said in this House means that there can be no question of any change in the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of is inhabitants?

Mr. Rees: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for uttering those words. He is of course absolutely right. Sunningdale does not push the people of the North into the South. Sunningdale and the Constitution Act provide that the

people of the North will decide. They must so decide. It cannot be done any way other than by the people of the North deciding. We shall do our best to get the message through. The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do not get much help from some people.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go further with this matter now.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1974.
2. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974.
3. Rabies Act 1974.
4. Contingencies Fund Act 1974.
5. Barclays Bank International Act 1974.
6. United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Act 1974.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (DELAYED VOTE)

Mr. Carol Mather: On a point of order. May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? The Leader of the House a short time ago answered a Question of mine, confirming that the Prime Minister was asking officials to prepare a Bill to allow for a delayed vote for those away on holiday during wakes weeks in the North in July and August. May I ask whether such a thing can be done without it going before the Speaker's Conference, and whether such a proposal has been put before your conference?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker's Conference at present is not in existence. Whether I am glad or sorry about that is another matter.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

4.24 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising To-morrow do adjourn till Monday 10th June.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I contented myself with moving the motion formally at this stage and if I replied to the debate later.

4.25 p.m.

Sir David Renton (): This is the first time ever, in many years, that I have ventured to speak on an Adjournment motion of this kind, and I must express my regrets to the House for spoiling such a good record. But I hope that in the course of my speech the House will feel that I am fully justified in having attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I should like to make it plain that I am in favour of the motion. Although we adjourned, almost without precedent as far as I know, for no less than a fortnight at Easter and it is only five weeks since we reassembled, I nevertheless think it right that we should adjourn again for a fortnight. I know that hon. Members will use the time well, as I shall attempt to do, after a few days break. I shall spend more time in my constituency than one can when the House is sitting—and I live there anyway. I shall get up to date in my reading of the mass of material which has been churned out even by this Government in their short period of office.
What I am much more concerned about is how Ministers will use their time during that fortnight. I have two serious and sincere suggestions to make requiring the Government to reconsider matters in which, in my opinion and that of the vast mass of my constituents, and certainly of all my hon. Friends, they have made two serious miscalculations. The first is the rate support grant and the question of rates generally, and the second relates to the serious situation which will affect consumers later in the year with regard to pig production and slaughtering.
One must declare one's interest in these matters. I must declare that I am a domestic ratepayer in my constituency. In view of the peculiar wording of one of

the motions passed by the House last night, I must also declare that, until about 10 years ago, I was an enthusiastic but not very successful producer of pigs.
I can best bring the mind of the House to the serious problem which arises on rates by pointing out that the new county of Cambridgeshire, formed of two older counties, is to receive £4 million less in rate support grant in this financial year than the two older counties received last financial year. That is in spite of the enormous increase in the costs of providing local government services—increases largely due to increased salaries, which we all think are right, of local authority servants, whether the higher paid or the lower paid, increases in teachers' and other salaries which some say have not been enough and should be more; and there are other salary increases yet to come.
There has been a general increase in costs, yet Parliament is placing upon our local authorities even greater obligations to provide these services, and they are expected to do so with less support from the Exchequer. That means much higher rates. The rates in my constituency have risen by the most swingeing amounts. This has been due, not entirely but for the most part, to the decision taken at the last minute by the Secretary of State for the Environment about the domestic relief element in the rate support grant. I had a letter from him on 22nd April, in reply to a letter of mine, in which he said that there was no hope of his doing anything to change this until the next financial year.
My constituents should not continue to bear this hardship until then. Therefore, I seriously suggest that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be asked to reconsider this matter. I did not give him notice that I would be raising the matter today, because I do not expect an answer now. All that I expect is an answer from the Leader of the House to the effect that he will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, at any rate in Huntingdonshire and the whole of East Anglia, his decision has resulted in great hardship and is certain also to result in some deprivation of ratepayers in terms of reduction of services.
Before I leave the question of rates, I make a further point. There are many


ratepayers who are required under the present law and the present assessments to pay for services which they do not receive—indeed, they may in addition have to pay for these services themselves. Many of our village ratepayers—this also applies to myself—have septic tanks at their homes. Yet we have to pay for sewerage services which are enjoyed only by others. But the trouble does not end there. I hope that the House will forgive me for this revolting allusion. We also have to pay for our septic tanks to be emptied, so we are caught both ways.
I have given that as only one example. There is a further matter to be considered. I know of a village in which there is no sewerage, no street lighting, no road maintenance, no speed limit, no school, church or shop, and no public house. Yet the rates and the assessments are high, and the result of the increases this year has been swingeing. Surely, even with the economic difficulties of the times in which we live, which are brought about by inflation, no Government could contemplate allowing such a state of affairs to continue from near the beginning of this financial year right to the next financial year. It is not right.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I support absolutely my right hon. and learned Friend in everything that he has said. However, I have always understood that one's rateable value was supposed to be lower if one's house was not connected to main sewerage. I am not sure that everyone knew of this or received the special allowance when their rateable value was fixed.

Sir D. Renton: My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right in relation to the law and the theory of the matter. But in practice owing to the way in which the assessments are made, nothing like due allowance is made by district valuers for this lack of services, with the result that a village such as I have described, with practically no amenities—I should have added that it is also without the advantage of a bus service—gets rating assessments which are only marginally less than those of a village which has all or most of those services, and others besides. Here is a serious case to be considered.
However, enough of that. I know that one should not speak for long on these occasions, and I want to come to the subject of pigs. There is an assumption —made mainly on the Government side of the House—that it is in the interests only of farmers that Members question what is happening to pig producers. But there could be no more blind or foolish assumption than that, because the truth is that at the rate at which pigs, including sows, are being slaughtered there will be such a shortage of home-produced pigmeat by the autumn that it is the consumer—all consumers, including those on the Government benches—who will suffer from this lack of a wise policy.
I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for his original decision. He gave a little help—50p per score—until July or August, but it was not enough. What I do blame him for, however, is for saying that he should do nothing else. A miscalculation was made by the right hon. Gentleman—no doubt on advice. But I ask him to use the period of the recess in order to think out the matter again and to get his statisticians working to find out what is happening in our pig markets and to get the matter put right
I had a Question on the Order Paper today which, alas, was not reached, and I do not yet know the answer. The suggestion in that Question was that an immediate incentive should be offered to every pig producer who keeps his sows alive until August. It would have to be a fairly substantial concession—I shall not say how much—but it might do the trick and save the consumer from being desperately short of pigmeat and from having to pay enormous sums for it.
There is some hope that if we have a good harvest—conditions on the arable farms are not too bad at present—the price of feed might come down enough by August to save the situation. It cannot come down before then. Therefore, what we want is an incentive to farmers to keep their sows alive until then, when, perhaps, all will be well.
Those are my two constructive suggestions. I welcome the recess of a fortnight and I trust that it will be well used by Ministers in the way that I have suggested.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I feel very uneasy about the Adjournment of the House unless we have an opportunity either of debating a certain matter or of an investigation being made into it, or unless I receive a reassuring statement from the Secretary of State through his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the matter. I refer to the London weighting in connection with teachers and nurses in Watford and other places which are very near to London. The system is absolutely riddled with anomalies. I wonder whether the House knows that the whole of the private sector of employment in Watford is receiving what is known as an outer London allowance or a Watford allowance—one or the other —as is the public sector. But that does not apply—I repeat, "not"—to nurses or teachers.
I should like to give an example of the stupid way in which this whole thing is working. Employees of the British Waterways Board, in Church Road, Watford, which is almost in the centre of Watford, are receiving an outer London allowance, while teachers nearer London do not receive that allowance. Employees of the Department of Employment in Water Lane, in Watford, are also receiving an outer London allowance. Watford has a district council now, and it is also a borough. The district council employees receive a local weighting.
It is a sad fact that staff are leaving the colleges in Watford and that they cannot be replaced by staff of the same calibre. The colleges to which I refer are three: Cassio College, the Watford College of Technology, and George Stephenson College. From all of these, staff are leaving.
The metropolitan boundaries which the Government are using at present are based on boundaries decided upon years ago. The situation is ludicrous. If the London allowance is raised in London, staff will gravitate from Watford to London, again causing a lack of staff at the Watford colleges.
I might mention Potters Bar, miles further away from London than Watford, where the teachers have the London allowance. The George Stephenson College in Watford has two buildings. One is just in Watford, the other just outside it. Those teachers who are just within

Watford get the London allowance whereas those teachers who live just a few yards outside Watford do not get the London allowance at all. If, therefore, a teacher spends more than 50 per cent. of his or her time in the main building in Watford, that teacher loses the London allowance. The House can imagine that an alteration in a class may make all the difference. A teacher may find that having previously received the London allowance, when a class alteration occurs, that teacher has then to spend more than 50 per cent. of his or her time just a few yards within the Watford area and thus loses the London allowance.
I might inform the House that house prices in Watford are higher than, for example, in Wandsworth. People who are moved to Watford on promotion find themselves worse off than they were before they were promoted because they cannot stand the expense involved. One teacher I know shares a house with three others, all of whom get the allowance while this teacher does not. Yet this teacher's expenses are the same as those of the three other teachers with whom the house is shared. Furthermore, many people are forced to commute, adding to train congestion, because they cannot afford accommodation in Watford. I know some people who travel 40 miles to Watford and 40 miles back because they cannot afford the price of Watford accommodation. Should not teachers be on the same level as Members of Parliament? The office staff at the colleges do not get an allowance and the colleges are afraid of losing staff on the administration side if the allowance is not given to those people.
I will give one further example. Sir James Altham in South Oxhey is just outside Watford. It is short of seven members of its staff. They sometimes have to send about 100 students home because they cannot get the staff to work there, just outside Watford. May I remind the House that housing in the area of South Oxhey comes under Greater London. Why should it not come under Greater London as far as teaching is concerned? The boundaries they are using at the moment are based on the situation years ago. The boundary is rather like a star, with places at the outer points of the star getting the allowance while places within the points do not get it—and they


are much nearer to London than some outer points. A circle, rather than a star, should be used for the boundary.
I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this matter must be considered as a matter of urgency. The boundaries simply must be redrawn. Can he give us an assurance before the House adjourns that this will be done?

4.45 p.m.

Captain L. P S. Orr: I believe the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken would certainly concede to me that the matters on which they have been addressing the House are not such as would demand the recall of Parliament if the House were to be in recess. Before we deal with this motion, I want to talk about the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe everybody would agree that if we were now in recess facing a general strike in Ireland of the magnitude and danger which exists, Parliament would immediately be recalled. Therefore, it will seem very odd to people in Ulster that the House of Commons should propose to take a fortnight's holiday without any clear indication of the Government's intentions on certain matters.
It is very important that we should measure our words with care because the general strike and the situation as it now exists in Ulster is but one step short of civil war. I do not think the House of Commons here in the calm of London can possibly conceive how high feeling is running there at the present moment. We have some degree of sympathy with the Secretary of State in the burdens he has to carry, and one can understand an hysterical outburst such as that with which he greeted my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). But such outbursts do not help. What is needed now is some kind of indication of sensible action in the situation.
When the right hon. Gentleman produced his statement today he told the House of the decision of the Northern Ireland Executive to postpone certain parts of the Sunningdale Agreement until after the next General Election to the Assembly. I suppose that is something, but it is an absolutely inadequate

response to a situation where the Government appear to have embarked on a head-on collision with the whole of the majority population of Ulster. It is no use right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite trying to pretend that if only the people of Ulster were told the facts of the situation, and if they had the Sunningdale Agreement explained to them in simple words, they would then understand. I must tell the House that the average elector in Ulster has read the Sunningdale Agreement. He understands only too well what it is all about, and all the Government machinery and the use of Government information services to try to bamboozle him in the future will not have the remotest effect on the situation.
The House really must understand this. The situation is of the gravest at this minute. We want to hear from the Government, before we let this motion go through providing that the House of Commons should depart for a fortnight, first of all from the Leader of the House himself, who has a responsibility in this matter and is always courteous about these things. Would he be kind enough to tell the House what arrangements are to be made for the recall of the House if something does not happen in the very near future to resolve this highly inflammatory situation? Will he also tell the House whether it is the intention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to enter into discussion with people who do represent majority opinion in Ulster? What he said at the Dispatch Box today did not give us very much hope in the matter.
The Government must understand that the situation is now out of political control. No more dangerous situation can be imagined; and the only way to get it back into political control is for the Government of the day, who are the responsible authority, to talk with those who represent the majority in Ulster. There is no other way.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way. Perhaps he shares the experience I have had since the General Election in my constituency, which returned 11 loyalists—I use that term with pride. We asked the people to


be patient and told them we would eventually get the Government to talk and see what changes could be brought about to make the constitutional arrangements acceptable to everybody in Northern Ireland. But as a result of the inflexible attitude of the Government, people now say that we are as important as other politicians and that they must, therefore, take the law into their own hands? Does not my hon. and gallant Friend find this is so?

Captain Orr: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has put his finger on the nub of the problem and on the reason for this ghastly general strike which is causing so much havoc and danger. The reason is that the Government of the day apparently have taken no notice of the General Election as it affected Northern Ireland. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland sent 11 representatives out of the 12 who came to this House to indicate their detestation of certain things being imposed upon them. The first action of the Secretary of State when he went to Ulster was to say that there would be no change in the policy in spite of the freely expressed wish of the majority of the people of Ulster. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine any more dangerous situation?
How can we ask people in that situation to be patient, particularly when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) endorsed that statement with a vehemence that even outdid the Government? There is no use the House of Commons seeking a confrontation with the majority of the Ulster people at this time. It is a gross folly that will lead to absolute disaster not only for Ulster but for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is an abject and dangerous situation into which to put our armed forces of whom we are so proud and whose courage, restraint and work in Ulster we have so much admired. To put them into that situation is nothing short of criminal folly. I hope that before we pass the motion and go away for a fortnight the Leader of the House will give some hope that the Government understand what the situation is all about.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Harry West: I rise to request that during the Whitsun Recess this House should

send an all-party deputation to Northern Ireland to see for itself the realities of the situation there. I was appalled at the conduct of the Secretary of State today in the misleading information that he gave the House about a provisional Government of some sort and ration cards there were being prepared in Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that the Minister should use the Dispatch Box to give out such information which we know to be false.
Conditions in Northern Ireland are extremely dangerous and the Province is likely to come to a halt this weekend. It is dangerous for the House to adjourn for the recess, leaving Northern Ireland in its present condition. The democratic voice of the people there, as expressed on 28th February, which spoke against the present system of Government in Northern Ireland, has not been heeded. We warned the Government of the danger of turning a deaf ear to that democratic voice on this issue. They ignored that voice and now the people have taken matters into their own hands.
This massive strike is supported by a wide section of the community all over Ireland, and the situation is most dangerous. It could be cured if the Secretary of State would humble himself and meet the men who want to speak to him —the power workers' union. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will not be coerced by gunmen and bombers, or something to that effect. That is highly irresponsible language.
These are highly responsible and decent men, the working class of Northern Ireland, and it seems strange that a Labour Government should, as it were, be grinding the working class of Northern Ireland into the ground on this issue. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not want to meet these men, I can quote precedents from the immediate past to show why he should. The first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), flew the IRA to London for a conference. They are certainly the gunmen. I understand that the present Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland even met the IRA in Dublin. Yet peaceful, decent men who have a grievance and who want to talk are turned down by the Secretary of State. It is most difficult for them to understand.
These men are keeping the essential services going. It was unfortunate that certain irresponsible statements earlier this week in the House by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) inflamed the situation to such an extent that the power workers decided to place an embargo on oil. Oil has been cut off and electricity is in very restricted supply. The Province is coming to a halt. Something must be done. The power workers agreed to keep 60 per cent. of the current running through the grid in order to maintain essential services, but only on the condition that the electricity was not used for manufacturing industry. There was a move to use it for manufacturing industry and the 60 per cent. flow of current was reduced.
The essential services are being kept going and the men who are organising the strike are not unreasonable, as we found when we discussed with them certain steps necessary to keep the community going. My hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland seats have held talks with the representatives of the workers, and we know that statements that Stormont Castle is organising supplies of feeding stuffs for the farmers' stock are untrue. Feeding stuffs were allowed out only because of our representations to the organisers of the strike, and it had nothing to do with anyone at Stormont Castle. Only this morning I had a request from a Government Department for help from the people who are controlling the strike to get supplies for certain of their services. It shows how chaotic the situation must be when a Government Department has to approach a body outside of Government in order to secure its supplies. The Government have lost control.
All the Northern Ireland community wants is the opportunity to determine its own future. We feel deeply aggrieved at this state of affairs. We are living in what we hope to be a democracy, but we have our doubts when we hear Northern Ireland Ministers thumping the table and stating arrogantly that Northern Ireland will have Sunningdale and that the Government will not alter their position. Such a dictatorship is repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland.
I can assure the Secretary of State that we will not have Sunningdale and that that is the determined will of the people in Northern Ireland. An admirable principle of British democratic practice is to allow people to determine their own future. That is being denied the people of Northern Ireland.
The House should ignore the misleading information given today and earlier in the week by Ministers. My appeal is for an all-party deputation to visit Northern Ireland during the recess to see the chaotic conditions there so that it may judge how the country is being mismanaged. We want the opportunity to express our will to get a proper structure of Government in Northern Ireland. Let the people speak; that is all we ask. We ask only for the right to vote, and that is not unreasonable.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I dispute what has been said by the hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West). He has accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of misleading the House. From my knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland, I can say that the Secretary of State has spoken the exact truth. Indeed he has under stated the case.

Mr. West: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was not here when the Minister made that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Fitt: I have heard the views expressed by the Secretary of State not only today, but since the onset of the crisis. I have had many discussions with him and his advisers in recent days 
I would agree with only one thing said by the two hon. Members who have spoken about Northern Ireland—that there is now a dangerous situation there Indeed, it is the most dangerous situation which has existed in Northern Ireland since its constitution in 1920.
A band of unelected people, people who have never had a single vote cast for them in the ballot box, people who misname themselves the Loyalist Ulster


Workers, are holding the entire community to ransom. There is more hardship and heartbreak in Northern Ireland today than I have ever known. Armed bands of thugs are blackmailing people, preventing people from coming out of their homes and estates, preventing people from going to their employment, preventing power workers from going to their work, preventing the shipyards employees from taking their rightful place in the shipyards, preventing old-age pensioners from receiving their retirement pensions—

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Fitt: They are preventing mothers of young families from drawing their family allowances, and are preventing the milkman and the bread man from delivering milk and bread. There is only one answer in the present dangerous situation. Unless the Government face up to that answer, there could be absolute chaos in Northern Ireland over the next 24 hours.
Last year, there was an election in Northern Ireland, held under proportional representation, and a number of people were elected. Three of the major parties which emerged from that election decided that they would form an Executive, which had the support of the previous Government and the then Opposition, and which has the support of the present Government. Those people have tried to rectify many of the problems in Northern Ireland. That is why they all took part in the Sunningdale Agreement.
The Sunningdale Agreement may not have pleased everyone in Northern Ireland, but it was an honest attempt to erase some of the wrongs of the past and bring about a consensus situation which would enable Catholics and Protestants to live together in Northern Ireland and allow free movement between North and South. It was a courageous attempt. I have no hesitation in once again congratulating and commending the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) on what he did. I am glad that the bipartisan policy towards the agreement still holds.
But now a band of Fascist thugs is holding an entire community to ransom in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Fitt: We shall hear that it is an industrial strike. In fact, it is not a strike, according to accepted standards in these islands. It is not about wages and conditions of employment. It is not about the hours worked. All the people involved have been disowned by the legitimate trade union movement in Northern Ireland. The trades union movement there and the TUC in this country have stated clearly that those who call themselves the Ulster Workers' Council do not represent the views of the legitimate trade union movement.
It is only a few hours since I left Northern Ireland. Throughout Northern Ireland electricity supplies have been cut. Those concerned are harming in particular old people who have to depend on electricity for heating. Many old people are dying a slow death.
The oil situation has become very serious over the past 24 hours. hospitals are not being supplied with fuel oil. Many patients who need surgical operations are being denied those operations. My young daughter, who is a nurse, tells me that such patients are existing on pain-killing drugs because the operations cannot take place, because of the insecure electricity supply position.
The whole community is being held to ransom by people who are not representative of the authentic voice of the Northern Ireland people. Barricades have been put up to prevent people going to work, to prevent them leaving their own homes. They are told that they have to go to certain shops.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Fitt: I understand that the Secretary of State said that people have been issued with ration books.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such inflammatory and totally erroneous remarks and then not give way? As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is reported by the head of the Department of Finance as having been responsible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the debate, which is on a very serious matter, can be conducted in as quiet and


as balanced a manner as possible. That was not a point of order. If the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not wish to give way, he must not be interrupted unduly.

Mr. Fitt: 1 realise that this is a debate about whether we should adjourn for the recess and that many hon. Members wish to express their opinions on the subjects which most concern them, but it is right that I should tell the House the factual position in Northern Ireland as I see it.
Within hours there will be a complete shut-down of many places of employment, and hospitals will be particularly affected. Many lives could be lost because of the non-supply of energy to hospitals. Many farm animals are dying. Thousands of gallons of milk are being poured down the drains because they cannot be delivered, owing to the road blocks and the intimidation being meted out to those who want to keep up their employment. This is a deliberate attempt, by people who were not elected, to bring the Province of Northern Ireland to a standstill and to assert their demands over and above those of democracy.
A few of the hon. Members opposite from Northern Ireland are Members of the Stormont Assembly, yet they have said that they will not attend it. They are boycotting it because it does not suit their book to attend at present. Therefore, they are negating the whole process of democracy and taking their actions on to the streets and holding the whole community to ransom.
I say with all the seriousness at my command that there is only one answer, one which may not be well accepted by some of my hon. Friends. For 54 years, at various times throughout the history of Northern Ireland, we have had the bully boys and the thugs of the extreme sections of Unionism—and I differentiate the extreme sections. They have blackmailed successive British Governments. They have rightly believed that any British Government would be unwilling to enter into a direct confrontation with them.
But in the present situation, when so many innocent lives are at stake, that challenge must be accepted. The

Government will have to use whatever resources they have at their command, and I mean particularly the British Army. The Army must go into the power stations—there is no need for civil war —and generate the energy that is needed. It must take over the oil installations in Belfast within a very few hours, or there will be total economic chaos. It must also ensure that the essentials of life are made freely available to everyone in Northern Ireland.
It may be said that by that action the Army may be bringing on a civil war in Northern Ireland. We have heard that over the past 54 years. Such threats have been repeatedly made to the British people who are told, "Do things our way, or there will be civil war." The present situation is much too serious to heed such threats. If the British Government believe that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom—and under the Constitution Act it is abundantly clear that it is—

Mr. Carol Mather: Mr. Carol Mather (Esher) rose—

Mr. Fitt: I do not want to see any British soldiers placing their lives or limbs in jeopardy in Northern Ireland. I have regretted the death of every British soldier in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mather: Mr. Mather rose—

Mr. Fitt: I believe that the British Government must accept their responsibilities. I regret that it has to be a Socialist party that must face this position, but, knowing the men who compose the Government, and having known Labour back benchers for some years, I feel that the Government will show the courage that they undoubtedly have.
They must take on these people wherever they are to be found if there is to be a confrontation. They must take over the power stations and fuel supplies. They must ensure that normal life as we know it here is allowed to continue in Northern Ireland. If the Government do not show their courage—and it is vital that they should do so—I predict that there will ultimately be chaos in Northern Ireland.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The three speeches that we have heard from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies


have displayed to the House, if it did not know it already, the grave situation that now confronts the Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom regarding their responsibilities in Northern Ireland. It was not my intention when I decided to take part in this Adjournment debate to speak on Northern Ireland, but even with great restraint I cannot forbear to say just a few words before I pass on to what I intended to make the subject of my contribution.
In view of the grave situation in Northern Ireland, I think that it is wrong that the House should be going into recess. That is particularly so now that we have heard the contributions of those who have come hot foot from Northern Ireland. If there is one thing that must be in operation in the present crucial situation it is the House of Commons. The House must operate so that we can test the Government's attitude and reaction to their responsibilities and the policies which they have in operation in Northern Ireland. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if he cannot now withdraw his Adjournment motion, will at least give an undertaking that the House will be recalled the moment there is to be any substantial change in Government policy in Northern Ireland, or if British troops in Northern Ireland come into direct and bloody conflict with the Northern Ireland people.
There is one point of view that must be put to this Parliament if such a situation arises. The moment that one so-called loyalist waving the Union Jack shoots a British soldier, there will be British hon. Members who will be wanting to put forward the views, the feelings and the desires of the British people. With those few remarks on Northern Ireland I now turn to what I intended to make the subject of my contribution to the Whitsun Adjournment debate.
The House will recall that about a year ago a security commission was set up by the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, to inquire into certain matters that had arisen involving Her Majesty's Ministers. It is not my intention to dwell on the personalities or on the actions of those personalities in that unfortunate incident. However,

compassion cannot detract from what somebody may consider to be his duty when matters of security are involved.
When the report of the Security Commission, Cmnd. 5367, was published in July 1973,1, in conjunction with some of my hon. Friends, tabled an Early-Day Motion expressing our grave concern about the manner in which the commission had carried out its duties and stating our rejection of the report. Today there is an Early-Day Motion which again confirms the apprehensions of some hon. Members and their rejection of the commission's report.
I want to draw to the attention of the House four reasons for its being imperative that there should be either a further security commission inquiry into the matter, or a debate in the House. First, anyone who read the security commission's report could not have failed to notice, despite some severe strictures that the commissioners made of two national newspapers and in spite of the part that journalists employed by those newspapers had played in getting together the evidence which led to the final exposure of the security risk, that no representative of the two newspapers involved in the journalistic investigation was called to give either written or oral evidence before the commission. That is an omission which must cause genuine doubts to be felt about the effectiveness of the inquiry.
My second reason is that certain statements were made in the report about the standards expected of Ministers in respect of security arrangements within their Departments and in respect of personal conduct. The requirements laid down in the report are different from those required in the Civil Service and in the Armed Forces. It is unacceptable that there should be two standards of security requirements, namely, one for officials and another for Ministers, if the risks are the same. In fact, the risks are the same, as all mankind is exposed to the same temptations and suffers the same human frailties. The security criteria should be exactly the same.
Thirdly, because of the speed with which the commission conducted its work—it was set up by a letter from the then Prime Minister and dated 4th June 1973 and it reported on 5th July 1973 —it is clear that the investigation was inadequate. Without any doubt, it has


left a residual smouldering belief, both in Fleet Street and in the House, and to a degree among informed opinion throughout the country, that all is still not well and that all was not covered by the inquiry.
My fourth reason is based upon what I have just said. Continuing suggestions are being made in informed circles that the then political head of the security forces, namely, the Prime Minister of the day, was told 10 months before he instituted the inquiry that there were grave grounds for believing that there were incidents involving one of his Ministers which should be subject to further inquiry and investigation. There is now the uneasy feeling that the report was ignored by the then political head of the security forces.
I draw attention to paragraph 8 of Cmnd. Paper 5367. First, there is a reference to the categories of document as being "restricted", "confidential", "secret", and "top secret". Then the report goes on to say that in the case of one of the Ministers
… we should have felt compelled to commend that he should be denied such access.
That, of course, was access to secret and top secret documents.
There is an uneasy feeling and speculation that the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath) had been told 10 months before April last year, that is, in July or August 1972, that there were grounds for concern for security in the behaviour of a Minister of his Government. The criteria enunciated by the Security Commission in its report must have applied then as they apply now.
In his reply tonight, or if we are recalled because of Northern Ireland, or when we resume on 10th June, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement making it clear whether the then head of the security services—the right hon. Member for Sidcup—knew of the situation and why, if the right hon. Gentleman did know on the basis of a report from the security services, no action was taken over a period of 10 months.
I do not believe that the situation can be left where it is. Either we must have the categorical statement, for which I ask, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is the present head of the

security services, or there must be an undertaking that the Security Commission will be called upon to carry out a further investigation of all the circumstances in the 18 months before 4lh June 1973. This House will then have an opportunity of studying the commission's report and, if we find it unsatisfactory, debating it.
It is not satisfactory that we should be left with the possibility of speculation in some quarters, both in Fleet Street and in the House of Commons, that there may have been a cover up, an attempt to avoid a political scandal. I hope that that is not true, but the only way in which it can be proved to be untrue is by the action I have suggested.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: There are a number of matters which the House should debate in the near future, although most of them can wait until after the recess. But two matters concerning my constituents cannot wait because by the time we return it may already be too late to save their jobs.
Two groups are concerned. Representatives of one group have just been to see me. They are pig and beef producers from the north of my constituency. They gave me horrifying figures of the plight of their industry. One of them has cut the number of his breeding sows from 100 to 35, while 14 others in the area have had to cut the numbers of their breeding sows in half since last year. They are losing £3 50 to £4 a pig, despite the subsidy. They told me that the price had fallen by a sum equivalent to the subsidy as soon as it was introduced, so that their losses had not been reduced by the subsidy. Soon they face increases in water and electricity charges which will cost about 30p a pig.
The simple fact is that their bank managers are running out of patience and they face the fact that, unless action is taken in the immediate future by the Government, they will become bankrupt. They will have to cease production and turn to a new way of life. We cannot drag this matter out for weeks on end until a decision is taken. The future of this part of the industry is at stake, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D.


Renton) has said, it means that in the not-too-distant future the prospects for the consumers, too, will be bleak.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation he is describing is the same in North-East Essex? That is why I join hands with him right across the countryside in hoping that the Government will take action.

Mr. Edwards: It is exactly for that reason that I thought it right to raise the issue. It is not purely local but applies to agriculture throughout the entire country.
This is also the last opportunity I shall have to make a plea to the Government to reconsider even at this eleventh hour the desperate plight of the Milford fishing industry. Six days before the General Election I was called to a meeting of the trawler owners to hear about the enormous increase in oil prices they had been confronted with in the early part of February. Immediately upon their appointment, the new Ministers concerned were informed of the facts. Their initial reaction was to refuse a meeting with the owners.
However, an attack which I made on the Ministers during a debate on Welsh affairs brought about an invitation next day to the owners to meet the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I need not spell out the situation in detail now. The figures were given to the Minister then and he was left in no doubt as to the immediacy of the crisis and the action which would have to be taken. All we asked—and it was a moderate enough demand—was for £70,000 to save over 400 jobs.
Two months passed. The crisis got worse. My letters were ignored. In the debate on agriculture, I told the House of the double disaster which faced two industries in my constituency—agriculture and fishing. I was told by the Secretary of State for Scotland in that debate—he is someone who is surely not over-familiar with the problems of West Wales —that I had painted too gloomy a picture.
But next day a letter was sent to me by hand. That letter must have been dictated before the Secretary of State for Scotland made his bland pronouncement.

The letter confirmed that the Government would take no action to save the Milford fishing industry. The Minister referred with facile optimism to the hope that the denial of the subsidy would not mean the end of the industry at Milford. He made that comment at a time when, despite assistance given by the local fish merchants, every trip was being made at a loss. His comment revealed as much ignorance of the facts and insensitivity to the nature of the crisis as the Secretary of State's comments.
The House is not due to return from the recess until 10th June, which is no more than three weeks from the time when the temporary assistance from the fish merchants will end. Last week I wrote to the Minister of State asking him to reconsider his decision. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales asking him to intervene. Socialists in Wales, appalled at the apparent indifference and financial shortsightedness of the Government, and perhaps thinking just a little of the possible political consequences, have joined belatedly in the fight.
I speak of financial shortsightedness because the cost of letting the industry down will be far more than the cost of enabling it to live. The cost in unemployment benefit and of the financial incentives to attract new jobs will be far in excess of the £70,000 for which we are asking. The cost in social terms is incalculable.
I hope that the Government, faced by these powerful facts and by the equally powerful representations by the owners and others, will have second thoughts. I hope that before the House rises the Government will do what they should have done weeks ago and what they have done for horticulturists in precisely similar circumstances—announce that they will give the Milford fishing industry the temporary help it needs. The Whitsun Recess may well see the trawlers tying up for the last time, the dole queues growing in Milford and the unemployment figure climbing to over 15 per cent.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I wish to say a few words about Northern Ireland. I have never taken part in debates on Ulster, but, like many other people in the United Kingdom, especially those in my part, I view events in Ulster


with a deep apprehension. This apprehension is not only for the well being of the people of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but for people in certain parts of the United Kingdom and for a number of people particularly on the west coast of Scotland.
The Ulster Unionists must clarify in their minds exactly where they stand in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. I can understand and sympathise with a minority people who, in their claim for independence, argue that their electoral decision is supreme, but it is difficult to accept that argument if in the same breath they argue that they want to continue to be part of a bigger body. This is a contradiction which has emerged from one or two statements by Ulster Unionist Members today and which they must iron out in their minds before long, or the people in the United Kingdom may come to some decision about Ulster.
I say to the Ulster Unionists that if they are as loyal to the United Kingdom as they say they are, on occasions they will have to accept the argument from us that as United Kingdom Members we want Sunningdale, because Sunningdale is concerned with our foreign policy relationships with a neighbouring independent country. Surely we are entitled as ordinary citizens—

Mr. West: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that Sunningdale was not discussed in the House? It was not part of the Constitution Act. It was an afterthought.

Mr. Sillars: It was discussed. Even if what the right hon. Gentleman says is accurate, it does not invalidate my proposition for a minute. I believe that if the Sunningdale Agreement were voted upon this afternoon, it would get the overwhelming support of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I am not going to enter into detailed argument. I have tried to state some of the difficulties which are inherent in the situation of Ulster Unionist Members in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom, and in relation to the House of Commons. If they argue that they are part of the United Kingdom, they have to accept the majority decision of the United Kingdom not on everything, but certainly in relation to foreign policy. No one who argues for devolution for Scotland, Wales, or any

other part of the United Kingdom ever argues that the devolved area is entitled to its own say on foreign policy, which has always been reserved for the Imperial Government—to use an old-fashioned term.
I shall not speak for long as I appreciate that other hon. Members have views to express. I want to concentrate for about five minutes on a Scottish matter, which will cheer up the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed, I might carry those Members with me. I wish to concentrate on the necessity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to use the two weeks of the recess to study again, or to continue his study of, Hunter-ston, so that after the recess he can give us definitive decisions on the industrial applications now before him and in relation to certain planning questions relating to the British Steel Corporation.
I fully understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties and I recognise that he has been in office for about only 11 weeks and that he has difficult decisions to make about Hunterston. I also appreciate that Hunterston represents a complex situation, the complexity having been compounded by the number of new amendments which both Chevron ORSI and the Hunterston Development Corporation have placed on his desk in recent weeks. The situation in relation to applications is constantly changing.
On top of that there is the problem of the British Steel Corporation's interests in certain parts of the Hunterston Peninsula. We are all aware that we must be very careful about what decisions we make in relation to the British Steel Corporation, because a wrong decision would have an enormous effect not in the next 12 months, but, more importantly, in the next 12 years.
In recognising this I acknowledge that there must be a built-in hesitancy about a final decision. However, against that, to ensure a balanced and objective view of the current situation, we must recognise other factors. One of those factors is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and as such is my constituency neighbour, is not new to the post of Secretary of State; nor is he new to the problems of Hunterston. He is familiar with the pros and cons of


the argument, both in Government and in opposition. He is an Ayrshire MP and has an intimate knowledge of the important part which Hunterston plays in the industrial future of Ayrshire and west central Scotland. My right hon. Friend was never short of critical words when speaking about the former Conservative Secretary of State, Mr. Gordon Campbell, and about Mr. Campbell's hesitancy and slow approach to Hunterston. I leave in evidence—a phrase I have picked up from the lawyers on the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Bill—what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in 1972:
Are we to get the Hunterston development? The Marco Polo of politics, the Secretary of State for Scotland, discovered Hunterston. He keeps telling us so. In the same year he discovered oil in the North Sea. But it is three years ago that he was telling us about Hunterston and saying that we must avoid unnecessary, long delays."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 2183.]
That was criticism by my right hon. Friend of the then Secretary of State for Scotland.
A year later, during the traditional period when we debate Scottish affairs here—one day in the year when we get a debate on the Scottish economy—my right hon. Friend again spoke about the then Secretary of State and said:
I wish to turn to the subject of steel. This is a story where a unique facility was discovered by the Secretary of State. 1 refer to Hunterston, which the right hon. Gentleman discovered during his Marco Polo activities in the Scottish Office."—
the phraseology had not changed in a year—
It is a story of delay, report after report, inquiry after inquiry, statements by the Clyde Port Authority, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the British Steel Corporation—and even the Secretary of State occasionally makes a vapid remark or two. What does it all boil down to? It boils down to the fact that nothing is happening."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 40.]
With the exception of the ore terminal, the phrase "nothing is happening" aptly describes Hunterston at present.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my remarks to my right hon. Friend—indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will read what I have had to say in HANSARD tomorrow. We

need a positive decision about development at Hunterston. That need has grown in urgency. There was a statement made a short time ago by a special study group dealing with west central Scotland. It produced a report, which we as MPs will probably get within the next fortnight, which has projected a sharp job loss because of the decline in certain basic industries in west central Scotland. This situation calls for a major response and a major initiative from the Government. The future of job opportunity initiative must lie in the Hunterston Peninsula and the future regenerative process of the Scottish economy in the west of Scotland must lie in the decision taken on Hunterston.

Mr. David Lambie: My hon. Friend is being unfair to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in blaming him for the delay. Is not my hon. Friend aware that the matter is more complex than he is making out and that there are two Ministers involved in the decision? Is he not further aware that even when the Secretary of State gives a planning decision the Secretary of State for Energy must give a subsequent decision on the need to build further refining capacity? Is not my hon. Friend further aware that the multi-national oil companies are at present putting pressure on the Labour Government to carry out the policy of the former Conservative Government and not to increase the capacity for oil refining in this country? I say to my hon. Friend that while we have been blaming our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he is not the main culprit. The main culprit is another Minister, who is, unfortunately, an Englishman.

Mr. Sillars: When my right hon. Friend comes to read this debate in HANSARD tomorrow, as I know he will, I am sure he will be delighted to find that he has a new champion in my hon. Friend —especially bearing in mind the supplementary question my hon. Friend put to him on the last occasion we had Scottish Questions in the House, when he described my right hon. Friend as being only a caretaker Secretary of State.
I am not blaming the Secretary of State for the delay over Hunterston. It is perfectly reasonable, given the complexity of the situation and the importance of the


decisions, that he should take 11 to 14 weeks finally to make up his mind about what to do. My point is that by the time we come back after the recess he should have made up his mind and reached a decision. That is not an attack on him: it is a fair and objective observation on the sort of responsibility he has and the sort of policy which the Labour Party in Scotland wants him to carry out.
The people of Scotland, knowing all the background to Hunterston, knowing the degree of support which the Labour movement in Scotland has given to the Hunterston project since its inception and knowing the rôle my right hon. Friend has played in spearheading the Labour Party's attack on the Conservatives' attitude to industrial matters, are bound to expect us at an early date in the lifetime of this Government to come out with a positive decision in favour of developments at Hunterston. That is all I am asking the Leader of the House to convey to my right hon. Friend.

5.42 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to make a few remarks on the grave situation in Northern Ireland. I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). He represents a constituency just across the Irish Sea from mine. This House has to face its responsibilities. Does it want Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? We must face this. The 1973 Constitution Act left the decision on that vital matter in the hands of a majority—a majority not defined—of the people of Northern Ireland.
This House, in its wisdom or otherwise, said that that decision was to be left in the hands of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The question of Sunningdale is not one of foreign affairs.
If this House had set up a Council of the United Kingdom and the South of Ireland and had controlled it in that way, there would have been no opposition from the people of Northern Ireland because it would have included the whole of the United Kingdom. Instead it set up a council in which it gave powers to Ministers of a foreign country to deliberate and make decisions about part of the United Kingdom. I put it to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that if

this Parliament set up a council involving Scotland and some other foreign country and did not allow the people of Scotland to vote on such a vital issue he would be the first person on his feet objecting and saying, "As this affects the people of Scotland and not the people of the United Kingdom or Wales we should have the final say." That is how the people of Northern Ireland view the present situation.
It was highly irresponsible of the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to stand up in the House today and to infer that I was quite happy with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and with the White Paper. I opposed it right down the line, and the record of this House is clear about that. For the right hon. Gentleman to imply that I was happy with the constitutional arrangements and with the safeguard is ridiculous. I even voted against that so-called safeguard because I believe it is absolutely meaningless.
The people of Northern Ireland were told that the destiny of Northern Ireland was in the hands of the Parliament of Northern Ireland through the 1920 Act. In a few hours in this House that Act was replaced. The 1973 Constitution Act gives no guarantee, because this House can change it at any time. What is more, the members of the party to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) belongs have made it clear that the Sunningdale Agreement is the first step towards a united Ireland. That is why they back it. One of them has said that it will eventually bring about the unification of Ireland.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I agree.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The majority of people in Northern Ireland are opposed to this Parliament setting Northern Ireland in the direction of unification with the South of Ireland. The Government can do what they like with the Sunningdale Agreement. They can feed it to the people in one or two teaspoonsful at a time but the people will definitely reject it.
I come to the present situation. I regret that the Secretary of State is not present. Today at the Dispatch Box he made a


most misleading and irresponsible statement. He said that hon. Members had set up a provisional government and were issuing ration books. When I challenged him, since he had the last reply, he made no answer whatever. I challenged him to name the hon. Members of this House involved. Let me say that if there is a provisional government in Northern Ireland, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to have that provisional government and those serving on it arrested because they are acting totally illegally. There is no foundation whatever in this remark, that goes to the ends of the earth and is a vile slander upon hon. Members in this House.
To say that we come here and draw salaries and are members of a provisional government elsewhere is a slander on the reputation of my hon. Friends. It is something that we totally and absolutely repudiate. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman name the persons concerned? Why cannot he name the place where the ration books are printed and name those who issue them? There are no ration books in Northern Ireland and there is no provisional government in Northern Ireland.
I come to the question of the strike. Let me say that the politicians in this House have made it clear that we thought the strike was untimely. Let me make it clear also that I resent and reject the vile insinuation of the hon. Member for Belfast, West that these workers are terrorist bully mobs. These are conveners of trade unions, leading shop stewards and respectable members of the community.

Mr. William Hamilton: Rubbish.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What is more, these gentlemen have the support of all the workers of Northern Ireland, and not by intimidation. For the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress to tell the people of Northern Ireland that 8,000 strong-muscled shipyard workers could be intimidated and prevented from going to work by a lot of women is absolutely ridiculous and laughable. If the shipyard men want to go to work, they will go. They have proved their courage and stamina in the past and will prove it in future. Let it not be said in this House

today that this strike does not have the support of the overwhelming majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
Let me answer the insinuations and accusations made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. He says that he has been told that people in the hospitals are dying. The Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security said today in a broadcast that essential services to the hospitals were all being safeguarded, that the strikers have acted responsibly to get essential supplies to the hospitals, that no surgery case had to be held back because of the strike and that ample supplies were coming through to keep the hospitals going.
At a meeting between the Minister of State, the workers and some of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, the Minister of State promised that his colleague the Secretary of State would meet the workers and discuss with them the issues that have brought about the strike. That meeting has not taken place. The Secretary of State said that he will not sit down with these men because they are not elected representatives, How often does he sit down with other people who are not elected representatives?
Whether the House likes it or not, these workers have the support of the vast majority of the community in Northern Ireland. The House should not blink the fact that the course suggested by the hon. Member for Belfast, West of using the Army against the majority population is a course of absolute disaster. Not one of us in the House would vote for such a course. That is why the House should not adjourn without an assurance from the Leader of the House that, if it is intended to take such action, the House will have an opportunity to discuss it and its ramifications.
Can the Army go in and man the power stations? It has the power to do that. Can the Army take over the distribution of oil? Every hon. Member knows that the Army can caretake but cannot run a country without the support of the majority of the population.
What are the demands of the men? They say they want to vote and they want a General Election. Why is the Executive so afraid to go to the country? Why does the Executive want to wait four years? This is no ordinary situation. The


Executive has never declared its policy and we have never had an opportunity to discuss it. Why do not the members of the Executive submit themselves to the electorate? If those whom I represent—the United Ulster Unionists—are defeated in an election, we shall be happy to be the constitutional Opposition in the Assembly, but if the Executive is defeated, its members have made it clear that they will not be the constitutional Opposition, they must be the Government of the country. A veto has been put into the hands of the minority.
The House has a decision to make. As I have said before, I should welcome a referendum throughout the whole United Kingdom on whether the people want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. I would gladly accept that, but I resent the innuendoes that we are Cinderellas, and I resent the Prime Minister saying to the shipyard, "We will withdraw your grant unless you go the way we want you to go." Let the House face the issue and say whether it wants Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Let there be a referendum of the whole of the United Kingdom. If Ulster has to go its own way, it will go it reluctantly, but it will never go into a United Ireland Republic.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I hope that the House will not think that I do not appreciate the grave nature of the crisis in Northern Ireland if I choose not to speak about it. I hope that I shall be forgiven for not following what appears to be the new parliamentary practice of speaking a few words on Northern Ireland before moving to the main topic.
I find it inconceivable that the House should rise for the Whitsun Recess without first finding an opportunity to debate the serious problems facing the single homeless person. I make no apology for drawing attention to this small minority. I have a strong constituency interest in this subject, because one-third of all the lodging houses in Scotland are situated within my constituency.
This is not just another constituency matter. The problems facing the single homeless beg many questions of national policy. It must be of concern to every hon. Member that this pressing social

problem has been neglected for so long by both central and local authorities. It is vital that the House should debate this issue in the immediate future for two reasons.
First, there has been produced within the past fortnight a report by an urban aid project based in Edinburgh on the accommodation provided by each Scottish local authority for the single homeless. The picture that emerges from that remarkable report is a picture of systematic and cynical neglect of the single homeless, which is exemplified in three ways.
First, there is the neglect exemplified by buck passing by every social work department in the rural areas by dispatching the single homeless to lodging houses in the cities. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is not present to hear my comments on his constituency —indeed there is no Liberal Member in the Chamber—but perhaps we may send him a copy of HANSARD tomorrow.
In the county of Roxburgh, the director of social work says that he makes no provision for the single homeless. The single homeless are referred to Edinburgh, three counties away. Selkirk County Council repeats that practice. The director there has the effrontery to say:
Those of us in the backwoods are all too conscious of our debt to social workers in the cities, as we know so many of your homeless have originated from areas such as this.
That illustrates clearly the buck passing that has gone on.
Secondly, neglect is exemplified by the failure to come to a realistic estimate of the scale of the problem. The social work director of Paisley was asked what provision was made for the single homeless and what was the estimate of the number of single homeless. The director tells us that Paisley provides a lodging house with 127 beds, and it is always full. His realistic estimate of the number of single homeless in the borough is 127 —how very convenient!
Lastly, we see the neglect of the problem exemplified by the fact that such accommodation as is provided is totally inappropriate. I refer here to Banff, where it was found that the only provision made for the single homeless, some of whom may be youngsters, is in an old people's home. I am sorry that all my illustrations


are drawn from Scotland—it was a Scottish survey. I am confident that the same picture of neglect and buck passing would be repeated in a survey of any region in either of the other two nations.
The second reason why I feel it vital to have an urgent debate on this matter is that we are clearly on the verge of an acute crisis in the provision of accommodation for the single homeless. There is an increase in the number of single homeless. There is a doss house in my constituency that rejoices in the apt title of the People's Palace. Last winter the People's Palace reported an increase of 20 per cent. in the number of people using it. The most discouraging feature is that the increase was largest among the youngest age group.
At a time when we are faced with an increase in demand, there has been a sharp drop in the supply of accommodation. This is true of many areas of Britain. I understand that within the last decade in Liverpool and in Cardiff the number of beds in lodging houses has dropped by 25 per cent. in Glasgow the number has dropped by 60 per cent. and in Manchester by a staggering total of 80 per cent. We do not need to look far for the reasons for this drop.
In the past week, an urgent situation has developed in my constituency. One major lodging house has been warned by the fire brigade that unless the necessary works are carried out immediately, it will be asked to close within a month. It is an old building and it will cost an estimated £70,000 to make the accommodation safe. We should not expect any voluntary organisation—in this case the Salvation Army—to make that kind of outlay.
The only organisation which can make that kind of expenditure is the Government, and it is urgent that both central and local authorities should accept their responsibilities. If we lose one further lodging house by closure, an intolerable burden will be placed on the single homeless as well as elsewhere on our social services.
To many people the image of a single homeless person is that of a footloose drifter. That image will be resented by many of my constituents who live in lodging houses and who are decent, ordinary, citizens holding down regular jobs.

Equally, this group of people contains a high incidence of social and medical problems. Study after study has shown that this group contains a higher incidence of alcoholism, drug abuse, personality disorders, epilepsy and tuberculosis than any comparable social group. Notoriously, Camberwell hostel contains more mentally ill people than do most State mental hospitals.
Despite the very clear problems of this group, it is still neglected by successive Governments, who seem to imagine that the single homeless will one day simply fade away. It is another example of the idea that the more one needs help, the weaker one is and the less able one is articulately to demand help, the less help one gets. I cannot believe that we are really prepared to accept that situation, and I hope that, whether or not we adjourn for Whitsun, we shall soon have an urgent debate on this topic.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The principal reason that I wish to intervene in this debate is to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the pay of Government scientists. Before I do so, I wish to support the plea by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for an early statement on Government action in regard to pig production. Several other Oxfordshire Members and I saw the Minister of State for Agriculture on Tuesday and he promised early action on this topic. May we be told how soon action will take place, since many pig producers, especially the small producers, are suffering considerably?
I have often raised in the House the dispute between the Civil Service Department and Government scientists, and I wish to do so again today. The last time I raised this topic was on a similar debate on an identical motion on 9th April. I then said that before the House rose for Easter we should consider the Pay Board report. This matter was considered by the Secretary of State for Employment who told the House on 6th May that he was prepared to intervene as necessary in the case of Government scientists.
I understand that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants has since seen the Prime Minister and that it was promised that a settlement would be reached


as quickly as possible. I believe that the negotiations are drawing to a conclusion and I hope that, in view of the scientists' anxiety about their situation, the Leader of the House will tell us on what date a statement will be made to the House.
I should like to emphasise that I do not see how the case to which I am referring can be settled without a central agency to determine the anomalies which, I suggest, are at the core of all incomes policies. The Pay Board report has its deficiencies, but I believe that in future we shall need a central agency to iron out anomalies in the pay of professional people. I believe that in the long term for Government scientists there must be a review of pay research procedures, followed by a pay research exercise—an exercise which, I am told, could not be completed within 18 months.
For these reasons, scientists, who have fallen behind the administrative grades in the Civil Service—and I stress that they have fallen behind by as much as £1,000 a year since 1971—find themselves in serious difficulty. Therefore, an immediate award should be made as quickly as possible.
The long-term situation also needs to be examined. The Minister of State, Department of Employment, addressed the Institution of Professional Civil Servants at its Bournemouth conference yesterday and his speech was greatly welcomed—especially his statement that he was studying the long-term position of scientists in the Civil Service. Their status is extremely important, and I hope that in his reply the Leader of the House will be able to say what announcements will be made.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I shall not seek to take up the remarks of the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) or indeed to take up any of the points made so far in this debate— except to endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) on the subject of the single homeless. There are in my constituency distressing examples reflecting that problem and it must be said that our social system does not seem to be able to cope very easily with the situation.
I wish to raise a substantive matter which falls within the province of my

right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council. A few weeks ago some of my hon. Friends, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), raised with him the question of the prerogative and the right of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House or seek a Dissolution from the Crown. My right hon. Friend will recollect that in his reply—a reply which caused a certain amount of disquiet—he said that there was no automatic right on the part of the Prime Minister to secure a Dissolution when he wants it. In any ordinary Parliament this would be an academic point, but we all recognise that the present Parliament finds itself in a peculiar situation. It is a Parliament that is unlikely to last very long and can be said to be prone to the disease of sudden death—or at least that is how many of my hon. Friends see the situation.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the advice he seems to have secured with regard to the Prime Minister's rights in these matters is somewhat suspect. In the last 30 years what little remained of the Royal Prerogative which might conceivably have been exercised independently of a Prime Minister has been completely eroded. The few instances one can point to when a Sovereign has sought to intervene by way of advice have not always been happy ones in recent times. I have in mind the advice of the late King George VI over a successor to Neville Chamberlain in 1940. We need not speculate on the disastrous consequences if that had been adhered to and we had been landed with Halifax rather than with Churchill at the gravest time of the war.
There was the somewhat unfortunate switch-over of Cabinet Ministers in the very first hour of the 1945 Labour Government, as a result of which we lost a Foreign Secretary who would have taken a stern line over de-Nazification and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who at that time could have carried with him the confidence of the trade union movement. That was an example of the advice of a Sovereign being heeded.
What is much more pertinent is whether the Crown can any longer exercise any independent power at all. I suggest that it cannot.
What has happened has been dramatically illustrated on two recent occasions.


The first was the way in which, in the reign of the present Sovereign, the Prime Minister was chosen in 1963. It will be remembered that that was the first time that the Conservative Party had chosen its leader by a process which might be described as democratic. At any rate, it laid the ground that ever thereafter the leader of a party was to be chosen in a democratic way. That was one point of departure.
More recently we had a situation which was in contradistinction with the actions of Her Majesty's grandfather when faced with a major constitutional change, for in 1910 King George V prevailed upon the Prime Minister of the day to have an election which he did not want before facilitating a major constitutional departure, namely, a change in the composition of the House of Lords. That Prime Minister was obliged to hearken to the Sovereign's advice. He held an election which he won and got his way. As a matter of political judgment, I think that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends would have said that that was a good thing. But the important aspect of that is not the political one. It was the fact that the Sovereign intervened.
However, two years ago when the much more radical and some would say irreversible decision was taken by way of constitutional change for the unilateral secession of the sovereignty of this country to the Common Market, either the Sovereign gave no advice to the then Prime Minister or, if that advice was given, it was ignored by the Prime Minister and no election was held in regard to the Common Market.

Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Gentleman is quoting all sorts of precedents. Is it not true that precedents are used as a guide in an existing situation? As we have no idea what the situation will be, is not this pure speculation and an utter waste of time?

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) had been listening, he would have known that I had already pointed out that we all know that this Parliament is not likely to last very long and that this problem may have to be faced by Ministers of the Crown in the

next few months and possibly even in the next few weeks. In other words, it is not a hypothetical question.
If it were suspected by my right hon. and hon. Friends that forces were at work which denied to the Prime Minister of one party the same degree of constitutional freedom as might seem to have been exercised by another, it would be bound to plunge the Crown into a constitutional controversy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is on rather thin ice. What he has said so far is in order. But I hope that he will bear in mind the ruling on page 417 of Erskine May which says:
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not done so. It is in order, I believe, to discuss members of the Royal Family who are deceased. But it is not in order to discuss the present Sovereign in terms of political matters.

Mr. Lee: I accept your ruling entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have not sought to impugn the Sovereign or any other member of the Royal Family. I was merely postulating a situation which at the moment may be hypothetical but which might suddenly acquire explosive political significance.
Every week that goes by brings the possibility of Dissolution closer, and it may be that by the time that this House is due to return after the recess it will have become one of acute relevance to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Without pursuing the matter further, 1 would say that some Government supporters were extremely disquieted by the nature of the reply that my right hon. Friend the Lord President gave us, and we look forward to a much more cogent argument before we are prepared to accept what he has told us. It seems to be a matter of considerable doubt as well as one of considerable importance.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I wish to raise briefly a matter which is of extreme concern to a very large number of


people, especially the 11 million pensioners of all kinds who expect an up-rating of their pensions on 22nd July of this year.
Everyone knows that there is a dispute between the Civil and Public Services Association and the Department of Health and Social Security over the claim of the civil servants for compensation for the large amount of additional work involved in bringing about this uprating so quickly after the passing of the Act.
The dispute has resulted in an overtime ban which has lasted for more than three weeks. From the latest Press statements, I understand that if the dispute lasts another week there is very little possibility of these uprated pensions being available on time. This is a serious matter and one on which this House should have a statement before we rise for Whitsun, and I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some hope that the recent offer by the Department is likely to be accepted next week, in time for the payment of these uprated pensions.
One of the saddest manifestations of inflation is that responsible groups of workers are so frustrated and exasperated by the effect of inflation on their standard of living that they find it essential in making a case for more pay or better conditions to damage the very people whom they are dedicated to serve. This is true of our nurses, it has been true of our ambulance workers, and now I am afraid that it is true of the responsible people in the Civil Service who by their dispute may damage 11 million pensioners. It is no surprise that they should take this action, having seen less responsible groups bring about great economic damage to the whole country and by doing so achieve higher pay and better conditions for themselves.
The situation today raises a number of important questions to which I should like answers by the Leader of the House. Is it true that the Secretary of State for Social Services failed to consult the CPSA before deciding the date on which these pensions should be uprated? If so —I should like reassurance that it is not —then the Government misled the House when they introduced the National Insurance Bill last month. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the dispute is stopped immediately, or as early as possible next week, the Department

will still be able to make those payments on the right date? Further, if they are unable to be paid on the right date, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend sees to it that the people most in need—those on supplementary benefits—are given priority? We want those who are in difficulties—for example, those who need their rents paying to prevent getting into arrears—to get the increase that they were promised on 22nd July.
I think that I speak for both sides of the House in expressing anxiety about and the hope that the dispute will be resolved as rapidly as possible. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the serious questions that I have put to him, to make a statement on this matter before the House rises for the recess, and to do everything that he can to ensure that the pensioners get their payments on the appropriate date.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I shall be exceedingly brief as many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I am moved to speak because of representations that have been made to me by some of my constituents this very afternoon about an issue on which I think a great deal of sympathy will be forthcoming from the House.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) criticised certain aspects of the Civil Service. I want to identify a group which I believed deserves attention. I refer to a group of people, 70 in all, who until now have been involved in the work of the Commission on Industrial Relations.
Hon. Members on this side of the House welcome the abolition of the Commission on Industrial Relations, tainted as it is with its role within the framework of the Industrial Relations Act. I played a small part in bringing pressure to bear to ensure that its abolition was carried out with the maximum speed. However, the Government should recognise their responsibility to their employees. Governments in recent years have often fallen far short of standards regarding pay for their employees, but at least they have a record of considerable concern and humanity in terms of employment and redeployment.
I maintain that this small group of people face a most invidious situation. Because of their specialist skills and specific rôles, many of them are forced at very short notice to seek employment with other organisations in what is an exceedingly tight market. One of my constituents represented to me today that one post in industrial relations offered by British Airways attracted 15 applicants, all of whom were facing redundancy from the Commission on Industrial Relations.
It will not come strange to the ears of hon. Members on this side of the House that the higher ranks of the Civil Service in the CIR are to be amply compensated for the rapid change in their situation. But the 70 civil servants of whom I am speaking, with a salary level of about £2,500 a year, are not getting such sympathetic or generous treatment.
On this basis I feel moved to bring the situation to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to emphasise the necessity, as we are about to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess, of recognising that a significant group of people, who at this time may be looked upon as a flashpoint in relations between the Government and their employees and upon whom considerable strain will be imposed by the remarkable rapidity with which the Government propose to introduce new and controversial legislation, should be treated with considerable humanity and sympathy because of the difficulties they face. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr. John Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is a serious problem relating to the staff of the CIR many of us are sickened by the hypocrisy of a number of Tory Members who talk about loss of talent and expertise but did not make similar noises of concern when the change in the basis of the CIR under the Industrial Relations Act created a similar effect?

Mr. Davies: I accept that point entirely. I wish to emphasise that the Government must set high standards, higher than those that obtained with the previous administration.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I intend to be brief because the House

will want to debate the important subject of National Health Service pay and I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to make a full reply to the many points that have been made.
It is traditional in debating whether to adjourn for a recess for right hon. and hon. Members to express their anxieties about different matters, and the opportunity has certainly been seized on this occasion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about problems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is understandable that the situation in Northern Ireland should have loomed large in the debate.
I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that there will be an early statement on, for example, pig production. He will have appreciated from the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) that this is a matter of considerable concern and that any remarks about an early statement will be greatly appreciated.
In the same way, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said about the Milford fishing industry. I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Wales that that industry is extremely important to the area. As my hon. Friend said, a double disaster is facing that part of Wales in the context of the agriculture and fishing industries, and it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could give an indication that the Government are thinking in terms of providing financial help. It appears that those sectors cannot wait too long for help, and there must be anxiety in that part of the world that the House will be in recess at a time when the fishing industry is suffering considerable hardship.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells are of considerable importance. The dispute between the Government and the Civil and Public Services Association means that the payment of pensions will be delayed, and I know that the House would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman said something about that issue.
I wish to refer to two matters in particular and I shall do so briefly. The first would have been referred to by my hon.


Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) had he been fortunate enough to be called to speak. It relates to a question which was put to the Leader of the House during business questions today about a report in the Daily Mirror to the effect that the Prime Minister had asked civil servants to plan legislation to stagger polling so that some constituencies would vote a week, or even a fortnight, after the remainder of Britain.
The Leader of the House will recollect that when the question was put to him earlier today by my hon. Friend he appeared to confirm that that report was correct and that the Prime Minister had asked officials to consider the possibilities of such a scheme. It would mean that if people were on holiday during wakes week an arrangement could be made for them to vote on a date subsequent to the normal polling day.

Mr. Mather: That related to wakes week. It was to be a special arrangement for industrial towns in the North of England affected by wakes week and, apparently, was to apply to no other town in the country.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not had the opportunity of reading the report in full, but the principle is the same.
It would help greatly if the Leader of the House took this opportunity to state precisely the meaning of his answer during business questions today. Is it intended that there should be discussions and consultations with the political parties? Is it intended that any proposals for electoral reform should go before a Speaker's Conference? If that is not the intention, it seems that we are moving away from a constitutional position that has long been hallowed. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about the answers given earlier today by the right hon. Gentleman and it is right that he should make the position clear.
I have been referred to what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said when the House debated the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Lady said that in this country we place value on discussions and consultations and that they are essential. She went on to say:
There is also the general convention—it is, of course, no more than a convention, and I

know that there are exceptions—that proposals for electoral reform should be considered by a Speaker's Conference. I think and hope that most Members in this House support the existence of the Speaker's Conference and the objects which it is aiming to achieve."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May 1974; Vol. 873 c. 778.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the position clear and say that there is no intention of undertaking electoral reform of the nature referred to in that newspaper until the matter has been considered by a Speaker's Conference and there has been the usual consultation that one expects in these matters.

Sir David Renton: I think I am right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is reinforced by the fact that last year's Speaker's Conference considered the question of people on holiday being given special oportunities to vote and unanimously rejected that idea, with the support of all parties.

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that my right hon and learned Friend is right. I was not aware of that, but it reinforces the principles 1 have put before the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the wrong doctrine is established may I, as a former member of a Speaker's Conference, inform the House that that conference voted by 20 votes to 3 against giving the vote to young people at the age of 18 but that the Government nevertheless decided to change the law to allow people to vote at that age. There is, therefore, no doctrine behind the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).

Mr. Thomas: That may be so. All I am doing is asking the Leader of the House to clarify the answer that he gave earlier today, and I hope he will do so because what he said is causing anxiety. I do not think that that anxiety is restricted to this side of the House.
My other question relates to something that appeared in the newspapers today. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I should raise the matter during this debate, and it was raised during business questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). There is a report in The Times today to the effect that the Secretary of State for Industry's


personal policy plans for State intervention in industry, including the setting up of a national enterprise board, have been circulated to senior Ministers and leading trade unionists, but industry, management, shareholders and people directly affected appear to have been left out, which may be another example of trade unionists formulating, if not dictating, major national policy.
What is even more serious, however, is that the detailed proposals, representing as they do the most drastic powers of State interference and take-over, have been leaked to the Press. Anybody who looks at page 20 of today's issue of The Times will find the matter set out in detail. The proposal has been leaked to the Press well in advance of any Green Paper. I submit that this is very much a matter of concern in this debate because Parliament has not only been conspicuously ignored by whoever leaked the report but has been treated, if not with arrogance, certainly with contempt.
That has happened on the very day we are debating whether the House should adjourn for 17 days. If the motion is passed, it will mean that for 17 days the House will be silenced. The Leader of the House, who presumably is one of the senior Ministers referred to, owes the House an explanation. When will the Green Paper be published? Meanwhile, before the Green Paper is published, are the details which have been published to be taken as Government policy, subject presumably to any changes by the trade unionists who are being consulted?
I do not claim to be an expert but I understand that the Secretary of State's proposals mean that the National Enterprise Board will have power to take over almost every firm in manufacturing industry. That is the threat posed by publication of the proposal. While Parliament is silent throughout the recess, while no official Government proposals have been made and while there has been no proper consultation, what in the Lord President's view will be the effect on the investment programmes of the threatened firms, which together produce half the nation's output?
These matters reflect very much on the attitude of whoever is responsible

towards Parliament. I hope that the - right hon. Gentleman will give us an I explanation of some of these points and 5 deal with the anxieties which have been i expressed.

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Edward Short rose—

Mr. John Farr: On point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what your intentions are? A number of us on this side have sat throughout the debate. We have heard long speeches
from both sides on Ireland, although very few of the speakers as far as I can see have had the courtesy to come to listen to the reply. In view of your well-known understanding and generosity in these matters, Mr. Speaker, when there is a sizeable body of hon. Members on one side or the other or on both sides who want to make points which have not been raised, I wonder whether it is your intention after the right hon Gentleman's speech to proceed with the debate and call other hon. Members who are not yet caught your eye.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical I question about what I will do in certain s circumstances. The House is in a difficulty. We have had business questions and an important statement and now this debate. There is an important debate still to come in which many hon. Members want to speak. I shall have regard to all the relevant factors; that is all I can promise the hon. Gentleman.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: Many points have been made in the debate and I shall try to reply to them as concisely as I can.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) mentioned two reports in today's Press. I replied to questions about both of them during business questions today. I said nothing about wakes weeks in my reply about the report in the Dily Mirror. confirmed that the Prime Minister has set in motion a study of what would be involved in a July election—that and nothing more. Of course, any proposals that we decided to make would be discussed with the Opposition, and if we believe that a Speaker's Conference is necessary we would certainly refer it to a Speaker's Conference. But as I think you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have already said, there is no Speaker's Conference in


existence at present. However, I confirm that that study is taking place.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to a report in The Times about a document which was discussed at a meeting recently. Let me repeat that this is an internal Labour Party document. It was discussed at a tripartite meeting, one of a series involving the Labour Party, the TUC and the Government. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have welcomed that kind of discussion.
The content of the document, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see, is simply an elaboration of the Labour's Party's excellent manifesto at the election. When the Government have finalised their proposals they will certainly produce a Green Paper, I imagine before many weeks have passed, and this will be available to the House.
It was a bit much to accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry of contempt of the House. No Minister in recent years has made more information available to the House and to the country than he has.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I did not accuse the Secretary of State in particular of contempt. I accused whoever leaked that document to the Press. It appears in the Press as an authoritative document and it gives the impression of being Government policy. It appears before the Green Paper and before Parliament has been given the opportunity to discuss the matter, before management has had consultations. I thought that that was gross discourtesy to the House and that whoever leaked it must inevitably have intended that discourtesy.

Mr. Short: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that clear. Certainly my right hon. Friend could not be accused of not making information available to the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) mentioned rates. The Government are well aware of the general concern about the sizeable rate increases affecting many people this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the problem and has

noted the motions put down by hon. Members. However, the House had a full debate on these issues when it approved the Rate Support Grant Order on 25th March.
Also, both sides of the House have acknowledged that over 80 per cent. of the grant to the local authorities is being distributed on exactly the same basis as the previous Government proposed. What the present Government did was to alter the domestic relief, adopting a flat rate rather than a variable rate. We found the variable rate arrangements when we took office and we thought that it was grossly unfair. We considered that a flat rate was much fairer. I agree that anomalies still exist, but we have considerably reduced the number of anomalies.
As to the causes of the rate increases, which in England and Wales average about 29 per cent. for domestic ratepayers this year, inflation of course is the essential reason. But local government reorganisation and increased water charges have also contributed, and Tory Members were presumably happy to share in responsibility for both.
This Government are considering how we can remedy the general situation that we have inherited. This will take time and careful study. An acceptable alternative to the system of rating has eluded successive Governments. However, the Secretary of State for the Environment has it in mind to look at the rating system and at local finance generally.
As for the question of paying for services that we do not receive, there has recently been an extended Adjournment debate about this. In both rating and taxation we have always paid for services that we do not receive personally. It is also true that the valuation of each property takes account of amenities, such as drainage and transport facilities, and there are adequate arrangements for appeal against valuation. However, the whole matter is certainly being considered.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the responsibility for the present situation is that of the last Conservative Government. Would he not agree that that Government, in allocating the variable domestic element, said forcibly that the figure was provisional and that they would act


if necesary to keep the increase down to about 10 per cent?

Mr. Short: The hon. Member knows that the previous Government had no intention of doing that and could not do that.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) mentioned pigs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture recognises the difficulties that pig producers have been facing in recent months. We recognise that in time all this is likely to affect supplies to consumers. The recently published livestock survey results show a decline in the breeding herd, although not as large a decline as some of the interests concerned have suggested.
As I said when I took part in a similar debate at Easter, the Government introduced a special payment to pig producers soon after taking office. Those special payments were due to be reduced in a few days' time. But my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday—only yesterday— that the rate of payment will not now be reduced as proposed. It will continue at 50p per score until the position can be discussed in the EEC Council of Ministers. This will not solve all the difficulties of pig producers, but it will certainly help.
There are now other signs of improvement. Feed prices are easing and should ease further fairly soon. Monetary compensation amounts on imports have recently been halved and market prospects should improve in the coming months. Producers who stay in pig production now should reap benefits later this year. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and the hon. Member for Pembroke will not feel too pessimistic about this matter. There are very hopeful signs.
I turn now to the question of London allowance for teachers, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). The teachers have made their case for an interim increase fully and emphatically to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. Friends fully understand

that the teachers have to proffer their resignations by 31st May if they intend to move. We have asked teachers and all those other workers who receive London allowance to await the report of the Pay Board at the end of June.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in the House on 29th April:
I do not believe it would be rational for teachers to hand in their resignation a few weeks before the Pay Board's report to take effect a few weeks after that report is published knowing that there will be a substantial increase as a result of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 901.]
The teachers know quite well that they can negotiate on the report as soon as it is available and that there is no objection in principle to the negotiations covering the question of retrospection. Let me make that absolutely clear to my hon. Friend. I hope that teachers who are contemplating resigning will think again and continue to serve the cause of education in London.
My hon. Friend also referred to the problems of drawing a boundary line for the London allowance. Wherever the boundary is drawn, someone is always just outside it. It is always a difficult job, as we know as Members of Parliament, to draw a boundary. Wherever the boundary is drawn, there will be some unfortunate teacher who is just outside it. However, I am very happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be making an extremely important announcement tomorrow about teachers' salaries in general. I hope that this matter can be looked at in that context.
I turn now to the extremely difficult and tragic problem of Northern Ireland. I see only two of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have spoken in the debate.

Captain Orr: May I make it plain on behalf of those of my colleagues who are no longer present that the last aeroplane to Belfast before Belfast airport closes because of the strike is leaving in about 10 minutes' time? Hence they are not present.

Mr. Short: I know that. We all have trains or planes to catch. However, those hon. Members spoke with such vehemence in the debate that I should have thought


they would have stayed until the end of it.
Everyone in the House recognises the gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today already made a statement in which he has indicated the way forward. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Government, by refusing to negotiate with those who are leading the strike in Northern Ireland, are refusing to negotiate with those who represent the majority there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has explained, elections were held for the Assembly in Northern Ireland, and an Executive was appointed representing those parties that were prepared to give effect to the constitutional arrangements passed by an overwhelming majority in this House. Her Majesty's Government have this afternoon welcomed the proposals put forward by the Executive.
Those who are leading the strike—if it can be called a strike; it is in no sense the kind of strike that we understand— have not been elected by the people of Northern Ireland. They are persons who have taken the law into their own hands. I am sure that the whole House will endorse the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is no justification whatever for treating these people as representatives of the majority opinion in Northern Ireland.
I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). It is not true that a Council of Ireland has been set up, as he said. It is not true that powers have been given to a Council of Ministers on a Council of Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 think I can claim that I was not fortunate in catching your eye today.

Mr. Short: I am sorry—I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It is not true that powers have been given to a Council of Ministers on a Council of Ireland. Before a council can be set up and powers can be devolved to it, the approval of the Assembly—that is, the elected forum of government in Northern Ireland—is required. The hon. Gentleman asked why

the Executive do not go to the country. I shall tell him. It was because this Parliament at Westminster decided that the life of the Assembly should be four years, and the Executive can hardly be expected to put its policies to the electorate after five months.
I make it clear once more, as it was made clear earlier today, that our purpose in Northern Ireland is to encourage and enable moderate people to stand up and be counted. I make it equally clear that we—I think that I speak for both sides of the House in this matter—will never surrender or allow ourselves to be coerced or bombed into surrender by the demands and actions of men of violence. There can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland know that quite well. Why do they not stand up and say so? In Ireland they are leaders, but they are standing aside and watching Northern Ireland degenerate into chaos, terror and hatred. Why do they not catch the plane, go back to Northern Ireland and lead the country towards peace and reconciliation?
I turn now to the question of the Security Commission which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). The Government will certainly consider any evidence that my hon. Friend may have on this matter. I have noted that in the last Session my hon. Friend had a motion on the Order Paper, No. 408, which expressed his anxiety. He has now asked the Prime Minister to look into these matters. I invite my hon. Friend to write to the Prime Minister immediately to tell him what he has in mind. I assure him that the Prime Minister will very carefully investigate all he has said about the Security Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford also raised the question of the recall of Parliament. May I say, as I said on the previous occasion, that under Standing Order No. 122 the Government can ask Mr. Speaker to recall Parliament and that if the situation in Northern Ireland, or anything else, warranted that, we should certainly avail ourselves of the provisions of the Standing Order.
The hon. Member for Pembroke raised the question of the fishing industry there. The Government have given very careful consideration to the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and the trawler owners at Milford on the position of the Milford Haven fishing industry. But we have had to conclude that we could not justify a request to Parliament to vote public money for a national subsidy on oil used by the fishing industry. That is what it boils down to. We regretfully also concluded that there were no reasons in relation to fishing to justify a local subsidy to the Milford Haven fishing industry. I cannot, therefore, add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sent to the hon. Gentleman earlier this month.
The hon. Gentleman, however, referred to the Secretary of State for Wales. I am aware of the representations for assistance which have been made to the Secretary of State on economic and social grounds. The Secretary of State for Wales and the other Ministers concerned are now considering the hon. Gentleman's representations. I am sorry that I cannot now say more than that they are considering them.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised the question of Hunterston. I recognise hon. Members' concern for securing the right kind and form of development for Hunters-ton. As the hon. Member knows quite well, that concern is shared by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State, who is at present considering the whole question in his rôle as planning Minister. As he said in the House on 15th May, there is a great deal more to Hunterston than merely oil refineries, and his consideration of the issues has been complicated by the very frequent changes in the nature of the oil companies' applications.
My hon. Friend will know also that there are extremely important proposals by the British Steel Corporation, although they are not very certain proposals. Therefore, it is a very complicated issue. But my right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said and I can assure the House that he is just as anxious as anybody else to secure the right decision as quickly as possible, but it is important to get the right decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) raised the question of single homeless persons. I believe that his speech was one of the most worth while in the whole debate. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said because I have a very similar problem in my constituency. I believe he will know that this matter is being discussed by the Morris Committee on links between housing and social work. I will certainly refer to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said and we will see what we can do to help.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised, as he did last time, the question of scientists' pay. The Government have already demonstrated in a practical way their recognition of the quite exceptional circumstances of the scientists' case by the anouncement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he would be prepared to use his powers of consent in their case. I myself talked to the scientists at Dounreay a few weeks ago and I know just how strong that case is. The Government are now considering, in discussions with the IPCS, what immediate pay adjustments can be made in the light of the Pay Board's recommendations.
In response to representations made to him recently by officers of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service informed them that he would carefully consider the points they had made and that the Government would make their decision in the light of that discussion. We expect to resume our discussions with the body concerned, the IPCS, very early next week and I feel sure that these discussions will lead to a speedy settlement of the dispute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, (Mr. Lee) raised the question of prerogative in relation to a letter which I wrote to him and a number of his friends. I do not think I have anything to add to the very carefully considered letter I sent. It was based on the best constitutional advice I could obtain, not merely from one source but from a number of sources. My hon. Friend may not agree with what I said or with the advice I got from those


sources, but that is no reason why he should allege that simply because he does not agree with it the advice I obtained is suspect.
This is a very complicated matter, complicated by two factors. First we have no written constitution in this country, and secondly there is the Royal Prerogative, which undoubtedly still exists and is enshrined both in our parliamentary practice and in our law. These factors not only complicate the matter but also import a degree of unpredictability into it, making any more precise reply to my hon. Friend's letter quite impossible. I am very much afraid, therefore, that I cannot add to what I said in my letter.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) raised the question of the dispute relating to the implementation of the 1974 uprating of retirement pensions to £10 and £16. The pensions are due to be paid at the increased rates from the week beginning 22nd July. It is quite correct, as the hon. Gentleman said, that certain differences with the staff associations may lead to delay in paying the improved rates to some pensioners, and emergency arrangements are having to be made to continue payments at the old rate in the meantime.
The number involved will depend on how soon normal working is resumed. Negotiations are being actively pursued

and we very much hope that the differences will soon be resolved because this matter concerns the most needy section of the community. I should like to make it absolutely clear that if some payments are delayed after 22nd July no pensioner in the country will be out of pocket in the long run as a result of this dispute, a dispute we very much regret and which we hope will be settled very soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) raised the question of people who will be made redundant by the winding up of the Commission on Industrial Relations. I understand that this matter was discussed this morning in Committee on the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Bill. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would look into the matter to see what he could do to help. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look at this and try to mitigate in any way we can the problem of the people who are displaced through the winding up of this body, which I believe will not be lamented by anybody.
I hope that I have replied to all the points that have been raised. I think I have done so, and I hope that the House will now be able to reach a decision on the motion.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 10th June.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr.
Harper.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE PAY

7.7 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no need to remind the House of the huge concern being expressed and demonstrated by the nursing profession. not only about their pay but about some other aspects of their terms and conditions of service, nor of the fact that they are certainly not alone. The medical and dental professions are awaiting the report of the review body and many other groups of National Health Service employees—administrative, clerical and ancillary staff, the professional and technical staff Group A and B, including those covered by the report of the Macmillan Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—all have different areas of concern and I know that a number have written to the Secretary of State about them.
Most of these have already accepted awards under stage 3, but there are matters still outstanding and the object of this short debate is to impress upon the Secretary of State—though I am sure it is not necessary in her case—the urgency of some aspects of this problem, to make plain outside this House that that sense of urgency is shared on all sides of the House, and to press the Secretary of State to inform us as fully as possible about the Government's intentions. It may or may not be possible for her to say how much money, if any, is to be forthcoming, but I would press her very hard to say when and how this current pay dispute involving the nurses is to be resolved. The House will be particularly anxious to know the Government's re-ponse to the repeated requests of the nursing profession for an independent inquiry into matters referred to in their

long memorandum, which 1 will not trouble the House by reading now.
I want to make two important, critical but I hope constructive suggestions to the Government. First, I would urge the Secretary of State to abandon the commitment of the Government to the abolition of the Pay Board, and to be prepared to make use of the relativities procedure established by the last Government. We shall never succeed in getting the right approach to this kind of problem until some effective and acceptable machinery of that kind is established with the support of both sides of the House. If the Secretary of State is unwilling to do that, will she establish in one form or another a review of the kind suggested, at least in respect of pay in the nursing profession?
I hope that the debate will enable the right hon. Lady to make an announcement about that today. If she does so, no doubt she will make clear when the review will be complete and whether any action is proposed while the review takes place. I should impress upon her that she should be prepared to contemplate abandoning her commitment to the abolition of health service charges. With funds for the health service so desperately short. it is positively harmful to the service and those who work in it to discard any such sensible source of extra money at this time.
On a more general point, may I remind the right hon. Lady that in our exchange on the subject last week and, I think, in a speech at the weekend, she attempted to make a partisan point by laying the blame for the present discontent amongst staffs in the health service on some special failing of the Conservative Government, and she attempted to take some special credit for the rise awarded when Richard Crossman was Secretary of State in the spring of 1970. Quite frankly, that charge is unjustified. What is more important is that it is undesirable, when there are so many matters of real contention between both sides of the House, for a subject of this kind to be discussed in that way. It is precisely that kind of presentation of blame that tends to repel the ordinary citizen from the processes of democracy.
We should all recognise the persistence of these problems and acknowledge that neither side of the House can claim a


monopoly either of credit or of blame for the way in which they are dealt with. Take the position of doctors and dentists. The Secretary of State will need no reminding that at the time of the second general review by the review body in 1966 the award was caught by the then incomes policy and the Labour Government decided to phase the increases. They postponed half the increment for a year. Subsequently, at the time of the fourth general review in 1970, a Labour Government again accepted only half the increases recommended for the career grades and referred the balance to the Pay Board. In August 1970 after the change of Government a settlement was arrived at on the basis of a 20 per cent, increase on the previous year.
There is a balance of criticism on either side in the story. The Secretary of State referred last week to the nurses. I must remind her that in 1960 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was the Minister of Health there was probably the first attempt at a substantial upgrading of pay in the nursing profession since the establishment of the service. Pay for staff nurses went up just under 12 per cent. and for sisters by just over 19 per cent.
The period for which the Secretary of State has sought to take credit, namely the time of the 20 per cent. increase in 1970, followed two or three years in which there had been no increase—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What about 1961?"] That intervention from a sedentary position is precisely the kind of thing that does little credit to the House. It is no good hon. Members saying, "What about this or that?" We all have to face the difficulties and acknowledge that we have all grappled with them in different ways.
Richard Crossman's increase was substantial but it came after a period of little movement in nurses' pay and at the end of a massive campaign by the nursing profession, as they put it, "to raise the roof". Some action was inevitable and was forced upon the Government. No Government have so far been able to evolve and operate a pay review machinery for the health service which has been acceptable in the long term to the health service staffs.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who has taken a persistent and understandable interest in the subject, in a moment of charming candour in a debate on 27th January 1970, as reported at column 1322, said that the service had been consistently and persistently under-rated and underpaid by successive Governments, acquiesced in by an apathetic public. That is one of the difficulties, as we agreed when we discussed South Ockenden last week. I hope that we may proceed from that premise. The hon. Member was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). The difficulties have been made all the greater by the persistence of and increase in inflation.
Looking back, it seems almost ironic that in 1962 in a debate on 14th May my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East should have spoken about the fact that the health service and the attempts to upgrade nursing pay had been dogged since birth by the problems of inflation, because in those almost halcyon days the annual rate of inflation was in the 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent. range. If it caused problems then, consider how much greater must be the problems and how much more important must be the effect of inflation today.
It is significant that at that stage there was an awareness that the community had tended to take advantage of the sense of vocation of the nursing profession, and since then in various ways we have been trying to avoid that happening. The problem has still not been resolved. It is immensely difficult to measure the right scale of disadvantage. The difficulty of that measurement has increased because the numbers of hospital nursing staff in the service has shown a pattern of steady growth from 276,858 in 1966 to 313,847 in 1970 and 350,330 in 1972, with the trend still rising. In spite of that trend, the shortages persist. They, too, are difficult to measure because standards are rising all the time, and those standards depend on the amount of resources the community is prepared to make available.
Certainly there are some identifiable wards and units that are still unmanned. We can identify parts of the service which are short of resources. The Royal College of Nursing in its memorandum made a telling remark about that which has all the more force in the light of the awful South Ockenden report. It said:
It is difficult to convey, for those who have no experience of the problems, the stress imposed on ward staff. For example, two nurses may be responsible for rousing, dressing and toileting fifty or so severely handicapped patients.
There are, therefore, important and difficult questions to be resolved if we are to measure the adequacy and comparability of the pay that should be awarded. They are made more difficult by the factors referred to in the memorandum. They are not made easier—and here I make no criticism—by the changes which will follow the Government's acceptance of the Briggs Report. I have already welcomed that report not least because my wife was lucky enough to serve as a member of the committee. I take this opportunity, because I have had no other, of paying a tribute on behalf of the Opposition to the skill and industry of the chairman and the quality and compatibility of his colleagues.
We attach particular importance to the proposals in the report for encouraging married women to return to nursing and about the age of entry—subject, of course, to the safeguards referred to—and about making the profession one which will welcome part-timers with proper flexibility. Here arises the vexed question of agency nurses. There is insufficient time to say anything much about that now, save perhaps to point out that the existence of nursing agencies, which do not employ more than about 2.9 per cent, of nurses in the health service, at least serves to provide some indicator of how far the standard of pay provided by the monopoly employer may or may not be falling behind an acceptable rate.
There are comparable problems in all the healing professions. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) may say something about them, particularly with reference to the doctors and dentists. I have had letters from virtually all those covered by the Macmillan group through to the ancillaries. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not in this

short debate refer to their particular problems in detail, but they are all relevant to this debate, and also underline the case for the existence of an agency or agencies that can keep as far as possible all those related problems under review, with relativity and comparability in mind.
I do not know whether this is a question, "Are we for or against an incomes policy?" The right hon. Lady had much experience with that matter in her last tenure of office. I was closely involved with it when we were in office. We both understand the difficulties. Whether it is philosophically an incomes policy, it is part of the inescapable problem facing any Government. of determining a policy for the pay of the public sector.
I urge the right hon. Lady to echo some words from the 1962 debate:
The Government believe that, while the overriding requirements of the national incomes policy must be maintained, the work of this review could and should begin without delay on the lines I have indicated. They trust that it will go forward to results which will be beneficial to the future of the nursing profession and the patients that it serves." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May 1962; Vol. 659. c. 952.]
Ironically, that emphatic tribute to the necessity for an incomes policy sprang from our former right hon. colleague Enoch Powell. But the words would lie quite well in the right hon. Lady's mouth.
It was to that end that the Pay Board was designed, and to that end that the report on relativities was directed. The report referred, by way of example, to the possibility of the problems of the nurses and the teachers being involved in the relativities procedure. I remind the right hon. Lady that at least two of the professions with which we are concerned have made reference to this recently. The Secretary of the Society of Chiropodists, in a lecture given to the Leeds Convention, referred to a statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on 6th April and said that he considered it
premature to write off entirely the Pay Board's report, and there may yet be something for chiropodists in their statement".
Similarly, the nurses, in their memorandum, acknowledged the relevance of the board from their point of view in paragraph 126, where they said:
The Staff Side therefore went to great lengths to present a strong case to the Pay Board within its 'relativities reference'. The


fact that the Relativities Report of the Board made special reference to nurses was warmly welcomed by the profession, and it was the intention of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council to have early recourse to whatever machinery was set up to deal with such references.
I repeat that the board is essential if we are to avoid a situation in which those who are able and willing to resort to industrial action can achieve so much more than those in the healing profession who are perhaps unable, but certainly have been traditionally unwilling, to do just that.
I am sure that most nurses are still reluctant to resort to such action. I regret the statement by COHSE to the effect that action of quite a menacing kind should be begun very shortly. I earnestly urge it to refrain from taking any such steps.
It is on that basis that we urge upon the Government that they will be making a grave mistake if they abolish the Pay Board, that they erred in not adopting the relativities procedure last March, and that they will make a further error if they do not today announce a review of the kind for which the nurses have pressed. Unless they are prepared to proceed on that kind of footing, it is difficult to see how we can lay any secure foundations for a sensible pay policy in the National Health Service.
It is common ground, and beyond argument, that resources are short. For that reason, the present Government have not acted to restore any of the cuts about which they complained last December. The right hon. Lady explained last week how she is now seeking to give priority to local authority hostels, in the light of the South Ockendon report. But she listed in her speech to the Socialist Medical Association many other contending claims. We can all nominate our candidates. The pressures are clear to us all.
The right hon. Lady referred in that speech to the constraints under which she had to operate. She argued that priority should perhaps now be given to people rather than buildings. That is a perfectly tenable judgment. The figure put by COHSE on the size of the nurses' claim is £100 million. I cannot comment on the extent to which that is within the right target area. But it happens to coincide exactly with the cost of

abolishing all health service charges. It is a measure of the choices we have to make.
I know the right hon. Lady's commitment to a free service, and in another debate I am prepared to discuss that, on many grounds. But today, simply in the present context, I point to two facts. First, the Attlee Government made provision for amending the original Aneurin Bevan concept to allow for charges. Secondly, the 1964–70 Labour Government similarly were driven to reintroduce charges.
I urge the right hon. Lady to be prepared to profit by experience, to accept that it cannot be sensible to feel obliged to postpone vital buildings to which she attaches priority, that it cannot be sensible to postpone the restoration of cuts that she and others criticised, and that it cannot be sensible, above all in the context of seeking a policy to give priority to people, to reduce the resources available for pay.
I very much hope that the right hon. Lady has listened in the same spirit as that in which I have sought to argue the case for the points I have urged upon her so strongly.

7.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): You have asked Front Bench speakers in particular to limit their remarks, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, 1 cannot pursue many of the detailed points the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) raised. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will touch on them in his winding up speech.
But there are certain matters of substance concerning nurses which I must discuss. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wisely made his speech in remarkably low key. I say "wisely" because if ever I try to draw comparisons between the performance of his Government and the performance of our Government he immediately brands me as partisan. I point out to him that when we talk about the situation in which nurses find themselves, we are talking about the fundamental difference of party policy on the crucial issue of the relevance of a statutory prices and incomes policy.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman lecturing me about


being partisan when he proceeds to attack the Government for proposing to abolish the Pay Board, because that is the context in which we face the crisis in the National Health Service. It is in that context that nurses are on the march. It is in that context that they feel more bitter than at any time in the memory of any of us. It is in that context that we have the unprecedented situation that nurses and others in the health service are talking of going on strike, something that we always said we believed was vocationally impossible. I warn the House that it is a measure of the dangers, inadequacies and pitfalls of a rigid statutory pay policy.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not have the humility to say tonight, "Looking back, we realise that in those three and a half years we were wrong. We tried to impose a rigid formula, and it failed." If he had said that, I should have been prepared to speak on a bipartisan basis.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; I have tried to operate a statutory pay policy. I learnt from that experience. The previous Labour Government decided, because of the dangers of such a policy, that it was an essential criterion to de-escalate into a voluntary policy. We felt that it was necessary to educate and persuade the people on the basis that it was necessary to establish a system of relationships between rewards and consent. But has the right hon. and learned Gentleman applauded us for that? On the contrary, it was the major theme of the Conservative Party in the last General Election. According to what I read in the newspapers it will be his party's major theme in the next election. It seems that the Conservative Party has not reached the position in which it can think of anything else.
I begin by saying advisedly that when I came into office I found a situation affecting the nursing profession that was directly related to the fact that nurses, under a statutory prices and incomes policy, had fallen lamentably behind. It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it is wrong to wind up the Pay Board and that the nurses should go to a relativities board. His Government never sent them there. It is a historical fact that the only independent reviews that the nurses have

had have been under Labour Governments—yes, even under the Labour Government, of which I was a member, which operated a prices and incomes policy.
It was in 1967–68 that the nurses had their first independent review under the Prices and Incomes Board. In April 1970, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, they received a special review under Dick Crossman which gave them the highest increase ever in the history of the profession. That is validly a starting point. We all argue that a statutory incomes policy is designed to help the low paid, but it does not work in that way. Indeed, it worked out less that way under the more rigid policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government.
I shall give the House some facts to demonstrate how in the past four years the nurses have fallen behind in terms of relativities. Between 1966 and 1970 the nurses' rates, under a Labour Government, rose by 31 per cent. In the same period, the retail price increase increased by 19·5 per cent. and average wages for all industries and services rose by 24·8 per cent. Between April 1970 and April 1974, nurses' rates rose by 46 per cent. In the same period the retail price index increased by 44 per cent. and average rates for the rest of industry rose by 64 per cent.
Do we need any other indicator of the mood that I have inherited? The fact is that the nurses have fallen behind dramatically. I appeal to the House to learn the lessons that we all have to learn. We must appreciate how clumsy and inadequate an instrument we have in the tidy but pedantic prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles) rose—

Mrs. Castle: No, I shall not give way. I must not delay the House by taking up arguments, much as I should like to do so. I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into the argument about prescription charges, because in the circumstances it would be wrong to do so. I am trying to obey Mr. Speaker's direction in the interests of hon. Members.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)rose—

Mrs. Castle: No, I shall not give way.
There is another way in which the nurses were betrayed by the previous Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that his wife played a distinguished part in the Briggs Committee. That being so, she must have told him what a vital key it was for the revision of the status of the whole profession in revolutionising the education system and getting rid of the crudest source of discontent, namely, the fact that student nurses were not treated as students, but exploited as cheap labour. We have not worked out the system of education for which the nurses have been pleading for so many years.
It is right to place on record once again that it was Dick Crossman who set up the Briggs Committee and appointed as a member the right hon. and learned Gentleman's wife. The report came into the hands of our predecessors in 1972. I shall not detain the House by quoting from it. I understand that every hon. Member has been supplied with a copy of the Royal College of Nursing's report entitled, "The State of Nursing 1974". I hope that every Member has read it. It is one of the most poignant and impressive documents that I have ever read. Within it there is the heart cry, "What has happened to Briggs? We are sick and tired and frustrated by Governments sweeping the report under the carpet."
My heavens, we were in office barely a month before we were at the Dispatch Box announcing that we accepted the recommendations of Briggs. We used the transition between the statutory pay policy and the voluntary policy to use the power of consent which was given to us under the present pay code to make a relaxation in highly exceptional cases. We used that period to lay on the table immediately up to £18 million for the nursing profession. We shall start now by paying nursing teachers and clinical teachers sufficient to attract them in the necessary numbers to allow the profession to maintain the standards of care that we all want. The £18 million will also be used to introduce improvements in pay that will pave the way for the legislation that we intend to introduce in the next Session of Parliament to make the implementation of Briggs a reality.
It was a mood of despair that I inherited. As the House knows, I was bombarded by telegrams within a matter of days from the Royal College of Nursing from its meeting in Blackpool. I was asked to implement Briggs immediately. I was asked to meet the college's representatives and to discuss pay. The other unions joined in. I met them as soon as it was practical to do so, bearing in mind the pressure of other matters to which I had to attend.
I met the staff side last March. Its terms were an immediate and independent review of pay. It was 10 days ago that I met a deputation from the Royal College of Nursing. That representation echoed the request for an independent review. By then I was able to say that the relevant paragraph on Briggs in their report was out of date because we had already acted upon it.
That was the crisis that we were returned to face. That was the mess and the demoralisation that was caused by a rigid, clumsy and pedantic pay policy. Of course, we were also left with the need to ensure that the transition from a statutory to a voluntary pay policy was carried out in an orderly fashion. The nurses were the first to agree with me that they are the last to want a free for all. Therefore, we had to ask the nurses to give us a little time to think about the matter and to move towards the creation of machinery that would be in keeping with a voluntary policy and yet would not burst the dam and make it necessary to give way to a flood of pay claims.
We were able to tell the nurses that we took their claim extremely seriously. I think that they were a little worried lest the concession that we made on Briggs should be taken as a substitute for a comprehensive review even though I assured them that was not the case. I hope and believe that when the present excitement has died down, as I hope will happen rapidly, the staff side of Whitley, in view of what I have to say tonight, will be willing to pick up again the offer of £18 million and move rapidly towards the Briggs Report with a willingness to negotiate its detailed application.
We have said to the staff side in the past few weeks, "We have already acted on a vital part of your document, but any pay demands wider than that have repercussions. You must give us time


to create the framework within which we can deal with them in a way that will not undo all the improvement that we want the nurses to have." 1 must say that most of the nurses have responded very responsibly to our request for a little more time. The Royal College said to us, "We realise that you have not been in office very long, but we have been waiting for years and years". It asked for an answer in three weeks. That was 10 days ago. I said, "I will meet the staff side again within your period of three weeks. You have already waited long enough and we are considering this problem very urgently."
Then again, last Monday, the nurses' representatives asked to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I was with him when he met them at No. 10 Downing Street. They pressed us again very strongly and very reasonably. They said, "We have your promise to come back with the answer in that period, but if you could advance it, that would help us to contain the frustration, which is now breaking its banks, with imminent danger to the National Health Service as a whole." That is why the Government have been considering this problem very urgently.
I am therefore glad to be able to tell the House that, as a result, the Government have decided to set up an independent inquiry into the pay and conditions of work of nurses and midwives immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Good".] I should say so. It is a good job that we have not got a relativities board still. Nothing would have been done by that body.

Mr. William Molloy: Look how angry the Opposition are!

Mrs. Castle: Of course they are angry. We have done what the nurses asked us to do. They asked our predecessors in vain to do it. The Opposition cannot get away from these historical facts.
I want to tell the House the details of the proposition, which we have thought about extremely carefully. Lord Halsbury, who as Chairman of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body has wide knowledge of the National Health Service, and has kindly consented to be chairman of the inquiry, and I am most grateful to him. I repeat that the inquiry will be independent, and the Government

are not seeking to fetter its finding in any way. I am discussing with the staff side the precise terms of reference and composition of the committee of inquiry. I should have thought it obvious that it should contain some women in its membership.

Mr. William Hamilton: And junior nurses?

Mrs. Castle: It is not only that the Government have acted as quickly as possible. We want the inquiry to act as quickly as possible, compatible with the study in depth which the nurses themselves want. I have already discussed this with Lord Halsbury. He tells me that he can get down to work immediately after the Whitsun holiday, and he is satisfied that the inquiry will not have to be unduly prolonged.
So we are on our way to a solution of the nurses' difficulties, and I give them the added assurance that the increases in pay which flow from the inquiry will be backdated to my announcement today. I am sure that the House will agree that we have done once again all that we can to meet the profession's legitimate grievances. Those grievances are urgent and we have dealt with them urgently.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Could the right hon. Lady help us by saying whether the inquiry will simply cover the question of more pay, or will it also cover conditions of service, structure and so on? Is she undertaking that whatever the inquiry recommends will necessarily be accepted by the Government?

Mrs. Castle: I think that I have already said that the inquiry will cover the pay and conditions of service. It will consider the structure of pay, the level of pay, the conditions of work, with relevance to the current claim. That is broadly what the terms of reference will be. I have said that we shall not fetter it in any way. We are not working to any particular pay code. The Government's attitude will be the same as it is to the findings of, for example, the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body itself. As the House knows, the Government normally accept its findings, although the formula is, "unless there are extremely exceptional circumstances".

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the inquiry involve physiotherapists, who do a remarkable job in the hospitals?

Mrs Castle: The House will save time by letting me complete my speech. I am coming to that matter which is of extreme importance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can pick up any queries with which I may not have dealt.
Some people may say, "The trouble is that this will not deal with the nurses' immediate acute financial difficulties." Even though it will report as quickly as possible, and even though the findings will be backdated, there are immediate financial conditions of very great severity for many nurses, particularly student nurses. But some of these difficulties arise from the fact that the increase in pay which the Whitley Council negotiated for nurses and midwives from 1st April under stage 3 is not yet in payment. I think that this is the cause of a great deal of the discontent, particularly as the cost of meals went up before the pay increase with which it was associated actually came into force. It was not until I met the nurses and they explained it to me that I realised that there had been this difficulty in payment.
It is due to two things. It is due, first, to the immense complexity of the stage 3 award, with its unsocial hours element and all sorts of new factors. This has jammed up the computers. It is as simple an explanation as that. The second cause is the introduction of the reorganisation of the National Health service on 1st April, which has meant an upheaval in the service and great difficulty for its officers. It has meant that the treasurers' departments in the health authorities have been under immense strain.
When I learned of these facts, I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to make immediate and urgent inquiry into the causes of the delay. As a result, I am glad to say, he has told me that in most of the regions the new rates will be paid this month, and where the arrears for April cannot be paid immediately an advance will be given to those concerned. There are special difficulties for the nurses in the Trent region and for those in the South-East covered by the Hospital Computer Centre for London. But I have asked the authorities in these cases to make advances this month on account of the 
additional pay due for April and May. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that additional money will therefore be coming into all nurses' pockets very soon indeed.

Sir G. Howe: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Lady at an inconvenient moment, but I must press her on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). The right hon. Lady said that the status of the report of the review which she is establishing under Lord Halsbury would be the same as that of the report of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. In the light of the fact that following the second general review of that body which reported in 1966 half the recommended increment was postponed for 12 months and that the fourth general review, which reported in 1970, was also modified so that again only half the recommended increase was accepted by the last Labour Government, what are we to assume about the recommendations of the new inquiry? I appreciate the difficulty of any Government regarding giving a total commitment on this, but can the right hon. Lady tell the House how far the Government are committing themselves to accept in advance whatever the recommendations of the review body will be?

Mrs. Castle: I regret the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, because he knows and accepts the traditional formula which must be followed by any Government. He must realise that by our speed in setting up the inquiry and the promise to back-date increases to this day, and by our saying that the Government do not intend to fetter the review body in any way, we have proved that we believe that only urgent action will save the National Health Service from the perils which face it at present.
It does not help us in what has been a tricky situation—which I repeat, advisedly, I inherited—to try to sow suspicion among the nurses and perhaps to encourage industrial action that would otherwise not take place. I could have expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have said that the Opposition would support the Government and pursue the Government to give full implementation of the award. That would have been a very different approach.
I repeat that the nurses can have faith in this Government, no matter what they have experienced under any other Government. Arrears of pay, or something of the kind, will be coming into the pockets of all nurses by the end of this month. I remind the House that nurses are bound to benefit shortly from the threshold provisions in their settlement. The latest retail price index figure will, I understand, be due out tomorow, or within a couple of days, and the House knows that as soon as the figure rises to 7 per cent. above the October 1973 figure, nurses will automatically get an extra 40p a week and another 40p for every further 1 per cent. increase in the index. For lower paid nurses this will be considerably more than would enable them to keep up with increases in the cost of living. It will enable them to improve their position.
Therefore, I believe that some of the worst stresses which the nurses have been suffering will be eased very quickly. I have put it to them, and I think they take the point, that they have asked for an independent review with full status and authority. It is not compatible with that to say: "Let us have a little bit on account meanwhile". To agree to that would, in a way demean the whole status and authority of the inquiry, and I hope that the nurses will appreciate that point.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). I know that he and other hon. Members are interested in the difficulties of other workers in the National Health Service, particularly those in professions supplementary to medicine, such as physiotherapists, radiographers, dieticians, chiropodists, occupational therapists, and so on. Their pay has always been closely linked with that of the nurses and they, too, will therefore benefit from the findings of the review. It is our intention that the results of the inquiry relating to the nurses should also be applied to those of the professions supplementary to medicine whose pay has been traditionally linked with that of the nurses, and I propose to discuss with those concerned how this can best be achieved.
It has been suggested in some quarters—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hinting at it—that what is needed is a comprehensive independent

review of pay covering all the staff in the NHS. This has its attractions. I know that some people have toyed with the idea, but the situation is a bit more complicated than it may seem.
Some groups in the service, such as administrative staff and scientific officers, have close pay links with staff in corresponding occupations in the Civil Service and elsewhere and by that means they keep reasonably abreast of analogues in other public services. Doctors and dentists are covered by their review body, and those concerned would not wish their existing machinery to be disturbed.
Of course I am aware that there are other groups of low paid staff in the service besides nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine with which we are now dealing in this special way. The service is as dependent on its ancillary staff as it is on anyone: the laundry workers, hospital porters, ward orderlies, and so on. They, too, have their links with local government, but they, too, have had their intense grievances over the past few years.
I say to them that I am sure that we all accept that priority should be given at this time to the nurses, midwives and the supplementary professions which have suffered particularly badly from the policies pursued over the past three years. They have shown restraint and a sense of responsibility for a long time, and it is only right that they should now have a review such as they have had from time to time in the past.
Meanwhile, it is the Government's aim to move away entirely from the outworn approach on pay which has produced a situation of such disaffection among people who have always put service to others before themselves. The Prices Bill, which will, among other things, give the Government power to abolish the Pay Board and the associated pay controls, is now passing through the House, and if it receives Royal Assent by the end of June, as seems probable from the progress being made, the Government will expect to abolish the statutory pay controls very soon afterwards in July
Thereafter, we shall move to the voluntary methods on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is consulting the TUC, the CBI and others concerned. In that new


situation I look forward to being able to consult any other groups in the NHS with problems requiring attention about how they might best be handled within the arrangements envisaged by the Government for securing the orderly growth of incomes on a basis that is fair to all.
I must, however, once again emphasise that it is in the interests of all of us to make a sensible transition from the statutory to the voluntary arrangements, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has explained more than once to the House. It is with this in view that we have asked those who have reached settlements to keep to them for their full term. Highly responsible groups such as the nurses can achieve redress only if the rest of us fully accept the justice of their case for this special independent examination.
This, therefore, is the new deal that we are offering to the staff in the National Health Service, a new deal compatible with orderly progress towards a voluntary pay policy, a voluntary acceptance of relativities by consent. I say to the nurses "You are on your way; you have your independent review; you have immediate action on Briggs; you have my promise to discuss with you in detail some of the anxieties and proposals outlined in the Royal College of Nursing's submission about the health policies and practices which affect the standard of care". I say to the nurses, through the House, "Call off your action because, in your own words, you are no longer being played along".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. May I remind the House that there is only just over an hour left for those hon. Members who wish to speak and are fortunate enough to catch my eye. I underline Mr. Speaker's earlier appeal for short speeches.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I shall certainly have that injunction in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State referred at the beginning of her speech to partisanship. While I do not deprecate a certain degree of partisanship in this House—after all, it is part of the lifeblood of this place—I had never considered this particular subject, in my long association

with it, to be suitable for partisanship. Any temptation which I might feel to indulge in it, and I feel no such temptation, would be the more easily resisted because of the right hon. Lady's announcement of the inquiry and the review body.
I welcome that announcement. I have advocated such a body. The right hon. Lady points out that it is on the model of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists' Pay which was initiated in my own term of office as Minister of Health. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to achieve speedy action with the review body although, for reasons I shall give in a moment, I fear that the tasks before the body are formidable. I hope too that the findings of the review body will be speedily implemented.
I make no challenge at all about the good faith of the right hon. Lady in this matter—far from it. What I am more concerned about is whether the financial situation of the country at the time of the report will allow of a full and speedy implementation That is the point about which one cannot feel the same degree of confidence as one can in the good faith of the right hon. Lady. She referred to the possibility of the threat of industrial action. When such a dedicated and devoted body of people as the nurses talk in terms of industrial action, we know that they must feel very keenly the inequity of their position and must have strong confidence in the merits of their case. I believe that such action is foreign to the nature of their high calling and that its initiation would bring inevitable hardship upon patients.
Two things follow from this. First, there being that real and natural reluctance on the part of nurses and health service workers generally to take such action, we—the Government, the authorities, the community as a whole and Parliament—must in equity be careful not to trade on their reluctance and to make them the victims of their good feelings. Secondly, we must acknowledge that industrial action on their part, if it ware taken and if it were applied with the skilled and systematic ruthlessness of some industries, would be an immensely powerful weapon. It is a weapon to which the community might well find it necessary or expedient to yield.
I hope that we never get ourselves into the position of not granting to reason and equity what we might hereafter have to yield to harsher and less commendable following considerations of unwelcome and unwanted confrontation. I hope that my record in this matter will show that my sympathy and good will are not merely an academic matter and that I have some awareness of the problems.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in his admirable speech was good enough to refer to the increase in nurses' pay which I was able to persuade the House of Commons to accept—there was no great difficulty in that—and also able to persuade those in the Government and in the Treasury to accept. That is not such an easy matter. That increase was the largest for about 10 years in percentage-terms. We sought then to introduce appropriate training allowances and differentials to make nursing as attractive a career as possible financially as well as socially. Yet the problem is still with us, in almost the identical terms with which we were then struggling.
Within a few years demands were in train not because nurses were greedy— they have not changed their nature—but because of inflation, the bugbear of all pay situations, but in nursing especially so because the nurses started a long way behind scratch. They were the victims of the nineteenth-century concept of nursing which divided nurses into the Florence Nightingales who did not need more pay because they were following a vocation and the "Sairey Gamps" who did not deserve any more pay. So it was that at the start of the National Health Service the standards of pay were unrealistically low.
In the years that followed, the nurses have never been able to get on to an appropriate basis of comparability. To achieve that we need a substantial revaluation exercise. In the idiom of this matter, certainly when I was concerned with it, there are two sorts of pay claim —the cost-of-living claim and the revaluation claim. The former seeks only to keep pace with inflation. The latter seeks to put undervalued or underpaid workers on a proper basis having regard to the comparables in other walks of life. The difficulty in an inflationary period is that

people need so many cost-of-living claims that the revaluation claims get jostled aside and lost in the crowd. They do not receive proper attention.
It is no doubt for that reason that the present claim looks so large in percentage terms. It is, in effect, combining cost-of-living and revaluation elements. In substance they are both justified. I am sad that we are still faced with this problem after so many years. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not apportion blame on a party basis. It is a problem not only of nurses. Theirs is a conspicuous part, but not an exclusive part of the problem. It affects many others in the National Health Service— the supplementary professions of which we have heard, the physiotherapists and many others.
It is not only workers in the Health Service who are affected. There is a central problem of securing for those large sections of our people who do socially valuable work, but work which is not directly productive in the sense that it can be measured by economic indices, a fair share of the nation's economic growth. My right hon. and learned Friend was good enough to refer to the debate of 14th May 1962. On that occasion I outlined to the House four principles affecting these matters. I said:
First, we have to see these matters in the full economic context. Good will is not enough. We have to see that we have the wherewithal to pay. Second, if the whole, or virtually the whole, of the nation's economic growth is to be claimed by, or reserved for, those who are engaged in direct production in industry, then there will be inequity for many of our fellow citizens, the so-called white-collar workers. Third, the strength of a pay claim must not be judged solely by its organised strength in collective bargaining irrespective of merit or the value of the work to the community. Fourth and last, but very important, no calling must be prejudiced because of a conscientious reluctance to invoke the weapon of strike or any other form of direct action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May 1962; Vol. 659, c. 966.]
Those principles hold good today. The only pity is that we should have made so little progress in their implementation. Twelve years later almost to the day, speaking from within a few yards of where I stood then, instead of being able to state those principles as milestones in the progress already achieved, I still have to indicate them as goals we have to seek.
I hope I have said enough to show that I appreciate the difficulties of the problem. It is a supremely important problem not only for the workers in the National Health Service and for others doing this type of work but for the patients and, through them, the community as a whole. I wish the professions, the committee of inquiry, the review body and, indeed, the right hon. Lady well in their efforts. I urge her to those positive actions so eloquently commended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East in furtherance of the solution of this vital and human problem.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: In the interests of brevity, I do not intend to take up the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I must first declare an interest in that I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, which has over 450,000 members, 200,000 of whom are employed in the National Health Service. Many of them are employed as nurses or in the nursing section. As a union we want to ensure that the lower-paid worker in the health service gets a square deal. Although I welcome the statement which has been made tonight by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it does not go far enough.
There are one or two first-aid measures that could be taken immediately to bring the dispute to an end. First, there is no reason why the full adult rate should not be paid to students and pupil nurses, nursing assistants and nursing auxiliaries at the age of 18. Secondly, I see no reason why all nursing staff should not receive payment for weekend, shift, night and overtime duties on the same basis as that which is currently applied by the Ancillary Staffs Council.
I welcome the news that an independent inquiry is to be set up to examine the pay of nurses. The inquiry should go a little further than that. It should have been an inquiry to look into the whole structure of pay of the National Health Service. We must remember that behind every nurse there are scores of ancillary workers who do the dirty, mean jobs and who get very low rates of pay. I hope

that there will be an inquiry into the structure of the service and that the views of the people I have mentioned will be noted, so that some help can be given to them in the form of increased wages.
Instead of setting up a review body for a short time to make recommendations which are acted on, after which the review body is forgotten for five years, I should like to see a permanent review body that will consider the problems all the time.
I have mentioned ancillary workers because I believe that without them the NHS would come to a standstill. We need them desperately. That is why I urge that the pay and conditions of everyone employed in the NHS should be considered.
It is no wonder that the nurses are becoming more and more militant—as they are in my area. My union is against an all-out strike and, after what we have heard tonight from the Secretary of State, I am sure there will not be one. I hope that unions which have been pressing for more militant action will take note of that.
There should be a greater degree of co-operation between trade unions in the NHS. The 12 organisations whose members serve on the Nurses and Midwives Council should work together in a joint campaign and not simply go it alone. The time is not approaching but is long past for having one trade union for all who are employed in the NHS. From that would come a unity of strength and purpose.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East said, direct action would have been unthinkable years ago, but times have changed, and the Florence Nightingale attitude must change as well. I believe that nursing is still a vocation, but it is more than that: it is a profession as well. Those who work in the NHS, especially on the nursing side, deserve a proper rate for the job.
Just before the General Election I spent nearly 14 days in hospital. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the devoted and dedicated care I received from all sections. That goes for ward sisters, nursing staff, ancillary workers and staff in all parts of the hospital. The girls who are in charge of wards all night have


a tremendous job on their hands, and they should be properly rewarded for it.
Some time ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that one week was a long time in politics—and so it is. I hope that the committee of inquiry will not drag its heels and that we shall get a report quickly. The committee is not to start until after Whitsun, but I assume that it will report before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. When they came to power on 28th February the Labour Government managed to settle the miners' strike within days. It cannot be beyond the wit of a Labour Government to resolve this problem so that we do not have to wait too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. William Hamilton: Listen to the Tories. Absolute humbug.

Mr. Lomas: We recognise it for what it is worth. That is why I totally ignore it. Let us not go back to what the Conservatives did on the introduction of the National Health Service in the late 1940s.
The health service today is not what it used to be. It is deteriorating fast. It does not attract the staff that are needed. Only a truly realistic recognition of the work being done by those who are employed in the NHS will put things right. Let us not run away with the idea that we are spending a lot of money on the NHS. Both Governments are to blame for that. We spend a smaller proportion of the gross national product on the health service than is spent in Canada, United States, Sweden, the Netherlands and France. We spend less than 5 per cent. of the GNP, and we must recognise that that is not good enough. I am sure that no member of the public would begrudge paying extra taxes to ensure that nurses and other staff employed in the NHS received a square deal. I should like to develop the argument in favour of radiographers, physiotherapists and other grades, but many other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Almost 50 per cent. of the total cost of the NHS goes on wages and salaries. Inevitably, if we want wards properly and adequately staffed we must be prepared to pay for it. Many wards have had to close down because of the short-

age of nurses. I was surprised that the Secretary of State referred in such glowing terms to the £18 million that has been offered by the Government. First it is chicken feed, and secondly the extra £18 million was for nurse tutors, ward sisters and staff nurses only. Although I believe that this is a necessary step if the Briggs recommendations are to be implemented, it will do nothing to give immediate assistance to the lower-paid grades of the nursing staff.
I welcome the fact that an inquiry is being set up and I hope that the Government will ensure that it reports at the earliest opportunity. If it reports quickly and its recommendations are acted upon, the Government will earn the respect, admiration and good will not only of NHS employees but of the nation as a whole.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) will forgive me if, in the interests of brevity, I do not take up his comments. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services has left the Chamber. I thought that she dealt with the House in an unctuous manner. She preached arguments of which we are all aware. What we want is action on behalf of the nurses, since action is what is lacking in the present situation. The right hon. Lady thinks that if she can prove that the Tories were the culprits, that solves the problem. That may satisfy many people as an argument, but it will not satisfy the nurses.
When hon. Members mention prices and incomes policy, they omit to mention that this argument ignores the fact that the present situation has existed for decades under Labour and Tory Governments. The trouble with the nurses' case is that their pay scales initially were not set at a high enough level. Because it has been thought over the years that the nurses, because of their vocation, would never go on strike, they have been put at the end of the queue, and over this long period of time the value of money has eroded considerably in terms of the cost of living.
I welcome the review announced by the right hon. Lady, but the figure of £18 million is derisory. There is no doubt that if the Government had the


will to do so, they could deal with the problem immediately. They have the power to make exceptions even under phase 3, or whatever phase we are now operating.
I hope that the review body will report within a short time. Unfortunately, the demands of the National Health Service are increasing rather than decreasing; the techniques are becoming more involved and the geriatric problem is increasing all the time. The National Health Service is in a serious condition which might come to a head within a very short time.
I welcomed the right hon. Lady's speech so far as it went. Her proposals were somewhat pathetic, but they constitute a start. I hope that the review body will be obliged to report within a short time and I hope that whatever party is in power—if the Labour Government manage to achieve this solution, I shall be the first to congratulate them—it will see to it that, at long last, justice is done to this worthy profession.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: In conformity with yesterday's proceedings, I wish to declare an interest in this subject. I am chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which makes some contribution to my constituency Labour Party. It is a somewhat indirect interest to declare, but perhaps it is as well that I should mention it.
I very much welcome the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to set up an inquiry into the conditions of service and pay of nurses and midwives. This move will be greatly welcomed by my confederation and indeed throughout the nursing profession.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in replying to the debate, will give the date when he thinks that Lord Halsbury will report. My recollection is that in the days of the coal strike before last, Lord Wilberforce reported in about 10 days. I wonder whether Lord Halsbury will report with the same degree of celerity. The situation is grave, and it is by no means certain that the Secretary of State's announcement will prevent all industrial action, because there

is a marked feeling of bitterness among nurses. The Secretary of State was unfortunate in that she inherited this appalling problem from the Conservative Government. She has also inherited all the bitterness engendered by the neglect of the Tory administration.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made a bipartisan speech. He wept crocodile tears over the plight of nurses, but we must remember what little was done for the nurses under the Tory Government. We accept that the Conservatives had to face the situation of a freeze on incomes, but there can be no excuse for the way in which that Government sat on the Briggs Report—a report produced in October 1972. It was only when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came into office that she immediately implemented the main recommendations of that report. The bitterness felt by the nurses has been almost entirely brought about by the fact that their wage claim has been caught up in a succession of freezes as a direct result of Conservative policy. The nurses' claim was laid on the table in January 1972. All they have received is a small increase of 7 per cent.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that nurses as a class of individuals display remarkable qualities. I think that most of us at some time or the other have benefited from the services of nurses, but probably not all of us realise what exceptional qualities are demanded by their profession. I have been a consultant surgeon for the last 30 years and I have been in operating theatres and wards of many kinds, and I know at first hand that nurses deserve the greatest sympathy and understanding for the work they undertake. I think not only of the ordinary services in healing the sick, but of those appalling jobs such as caring for incontinent people, attending to the dead, caring for frightened patients, people who are in pain or breathless and all the rest of their tasks. All these harrowing jobs require a high standard of character.

Mr. Donald Stewart: That does not butter their bread.

Mr. Cronin: The hon. Member for the Western Isles says that that does not butter their bread. This is partly the


fault of the nursing profession. Most nurses are inexperienced, unworldly young women. There are about 350,000 of them, and more than 200,000 are totally unorganised. They belong to no union and they have no representation of any kind. It is partly the fault of the profession that our nurses have no one to put their case more strongly. If they had a Joe Gormley, they would not be in their present position. I hope that they will rectify this in the very near future— certainly in terms of organisation.
The Secretary of State said that there was to be an increase which would be payable probably this month. The House should bear in mind however that even the 7 per cent. increase which is to be paid—which incidentally was due on 1st April—will leave first-year student nurses with salaries of £816 a year and third-year student nurses with £936 a year. In other words, they will be getting less than an office junior—a completely unskilled worker. Under the new rates which they are to receive this month, staff nurses will get between £1,300 and £1,500 a year, and ward sisters will get between £1,600 and £2,000 a year. It is a very unsatisfactory thought that a ward sister, who in a London teaching hospital had to have A levels even to be a student nurse, should get less than the average secretary who has completed a course in typing and shorthand which has taken about six months.
I have no doubt that these matters will be considered by the Halsbury Committee. But I feel that if the Government can do something now additional to the 7 per cent. that will probably ease the situation a great deal. I appreciate that it is difficult to do it now, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give my suggestion some consideration because the present award of 7 per cent. will not be enough to assuage completely the bitter feelings of our nurses, despite my right hon. Friend's announcement about the inquiry.
I hope that the Halsbury Committee will look into the possibility of higher rewards for our nurses. This was a matter considered by the Salmon Committee in 1968, but the recommendations of that committee were such that nurses got substantially higher rewards only if

they left nursing and moved into administration.
I hope that consideration will be given to increasing the pay of our nurses in accordance with their qualifications. At present nurses are not accepted into London teaching hospitals without at least two A levels, whereas at lesser hospitals they can get in with relatively minor educational qualifications. Nevertheless they are paid the same, and this is inequitable.
In my view, the Halsbury Committee should also look into the practice of employing agency nurses. This is chiefly a problem in London where 90 per cent. of agency nurses work. But we have the absurd situation where a nurse working for the National Health Service finds herself in a ward with another nurse doing the same work who is employed by an agency and who is getting up to double her wages. This is a matter which is obviously grossly inequitable.
I trust that the Halsbury Committee will look into hospital discipline. This is unduly harsh on nurses. Although matrons and others in administrative positions in the nursing profession are more enlightened than they used to be, there is still a tendency to make life more disagreeable for nurses than is necessary. There is still too much of a spirit of maternalism in hospitals. Nurses are not allowed sufficient freedom, and they do not like the restricted lives that they have to lead in nursing homes.
I hope that the Halsbury Committee will bear in mind that nurses are obliged to work very much harder than ever before. The turnover in beds is very much greater than before, with the result that there is a much higher proportion of very ill patients.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in a position to say when his Department is likely to obtain some figures about recruitment and some official figures to indicate how serious is the shortage of nurses. An estimate has been made by the Confederation of Health Service Employees, taken on a sample of 100 hospitals, that the number of nurses is roughly 17 per cent. below strength, but that is not an official figure, and I hope that we shall have an official figure very soon.
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. I feel sure that, with the present Government and my right hon. Friend's recommendations, our nurses may look forward to a better future than they have ever seen in prospect before in their glorious profession.

8.35 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have received more letters and representations on the subject of nurses' pay than on any other single matter in the last two Parliaments. Every single one from those outside the profession supports the nurses' claim wholeheartedly. I quote only one from a recent patient:
A recent stay in hospital has brought home most forcibly to me the outrageous exploitation of the nursing profession.
How right that lady is! But the interesting feature of those from people in the profession is that through every letter runs the same theme: "It is not simply our own future which is driving us to despair, but our anxiety that unless the terms and conditions of service of all ages and grades is improved, the whole service will collapse". That is true.
The £18 million that the Government have offered to improve the pay of nurses directly involved in the education and training of nurses, described by one hon. Gentleman opposite as "chicken feed" —again, how true—only aggravated the fury in the profession since it was regarded, in the words of one of my nurses as "an attempt to divide the profession". The Royal College of Nursing confirmed this view in its lucid document of 9th May.
The House will know that in the last century it was considered advisable to establish large hospitals away from the largest centres of population. So it is that in our relatively small city we have no fewer than six hospitals with a bed complement of 3,029 and 1,000 staff.
Lancaster covers the whole range of hospital services. The Royal Lancaster Infirmary is an acute general hospital with 237 beds and 129 staff, including the midwifery unit. The Beaumont Hospital is an acute specialty hospital with 121 beds and 66 staff. The Garnett Clinic, an acute specialty hospital, has 106 beds and 59 staff. The geriatric unit sited at the Lancaster Moor Hospital

has 158 beds and 93 staff. The Lancaster Moor Hospital, which is a long- stay psychiatric hospital, including Ridge Lea, has 1,405 beds and 391 staff. The Royal Albert, which is for the mentally sub-normal, has 1,002 beds and 290 staff. 
A superficial look at these staffing ratios might give the impression that the ratio of patients to nurses is reasonable. But closer examination shows that nothing could be further from the truth. With the exception of the Royal Lan-1 caster Infirmary, all the hospitals are 5 under establishment, and the proximity 1 to total establishment figures has been achieved only by over-recruitment of untrained staff, and the service is kept 5 going only by these and by selective overtime working and the fact that many nurses have time only to snatch a bite and rush back to their posts instead of 'taking the proper meal breaks that their s arduous work entitles them to take. I have seen that happen scores of times.
Some of the figures for in-post staff are little short of horrifying. At the Garnett Clinic, the acute specialty hospital, there are only 13 sisters/charge nurses out of an establishment of 19 and only six staff nurses instead of 10. The figures for the geriatric unit are even worse. Instead of 20 sisters/charge nurses, there are only 10—half the proper number—and only four staff nurses where there should be 13.
At the Lancaster Moor Hospital there are only 50 sisters /charge nurses where; there should be 71. At the Royal Albert there are 30 staff nurses where there should be 77. What bodes ill for the future is that there are only 43 students where there should be 97.
Even these figures do not tell the whole story. These hospitals are very old. The lay out of the buildings, as one hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench was heard to mutter, necessitates a higher establishment than the regional board ratio allows.
Moreover, the enormous advances in medical-surgical techniques and the new ideas with which surgeons are constantly and properly coming forward in themselves increase the nursing workload and put a strain on the nursing establishment. It is essential that nursing establishments should be realistic to avoid some of the problems which are otherwise inevitable. For instance, in


psychiatric hospitals wards are understaffed to such an extent that, particularly at night, inexperienced staff and student nurses are left with disturbed and epileptic patients, thus increasing the strain and danger to all concerned.
During the election campaign when my husband and I were discussing with people in my constituency the dangers of different occupations, such as mining, it was interesting how many nurses, or their wives or husbands, pointed out the acute danger to staff in these conditions and the number of times that they or their relatives had suffered injuries in the performance of their duties. They pointed out that, although the patient is protected by the Mental Health Act 1958, the staff are not. From the comments that I have heard these people make about miners, I cannot think that they would welcome Joe Gormley among their ranks.
Even when wards are understaffed overtime is not allowed, or time has to be taken off in lieu, causing even greater shortages and depriving nurses of the cash advantage, which they would very much value, of overtime at an enhanced rate, as applies in almost all other walks of life. The pay for the unsocial hours which nurses have to work is totally unrealistic. It is only one-fifth, and even this is based on the old salary scale.
In many parts of our psychiatric hospitals nurses are required to wear their own clothes instead of uniform, to give a homely atmosphere, and I am sure that this is right. This applies particularly to what used to be a locked ward, a horror ward which has been converted into delightful hostel-type accommodation, but the nurses' clothing allowance is a wholly unrealistic 30p a week.
The increment scales in some grades are odd, to say the least, and I hope that the Halsbury Committee will go into this most carefully. Ward sisters and charge nurses grade 6 have nine increments compared with three or four in other grades. This means that staff with clinical expertise, however devoted they are to nursing, are leaving the nursing side to go into administration to get better pay in the interests of their families.
That inevitably adversely affects patient care, as younger sisters and ward charge

nurses, however good and keen they may be, have not had the experience to have acquired both ward management and clinical expertise to teach students and pupil nurses, again reflecting badly for the future.
There is also a strong feeling that nurses, right up to highest grade, are given insufficient say in the planning of new buildings and the alteration of old ones. We constantly hear similar complaints in education. There is a particularly good example of this in one hospital. We were given two "Crossman hospitals", but clearly no nurse had ever seen the design before they were put up, because the bathroom door was so placed that it was impossible for a nurse to get an old or incapacitated patient into the bath. One hospital has been altered, but one has not, and they provide an object lesson of the futility of not consulting those at the grass roots.
But, despite all this, our hospitals manage not only to do a superb job, but to continue to pioneer and innovate. Under a scheme of community psychiatric liaison, which has been in operation for only six months, no fewer than 400 patients have been able to return to their homes, and the hospital staff do the outpatient work, following the patient home, visiting as often as they can, but again this makes demands on the time of the staff.
I had hoped that questions of nurses' welfare, pay and conditions would have been referred to the relativities board so that justice could be done to them under this procedure with better pay, conditions and holidays. However, the Halsbury review will be very welcome, and I trust that the right hon. Lady will be able to persuade her right hon. Friends to refrain from profligate spending on indiscriminate subsidies right across the board, to rich and poor alike, so that there will be money in the kitty to pay the bill when the review comes along.

8.43 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's statement and I, too, hope that it will be possible for us to have the report from this committee in a matter of weeks rather than months so that it can be implemented.
I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that if she wants to find additional money to help nurses and others working in the National Health Service we could look at some of the expenditure within the service. I believe that there is a great deal of wasteful expenditure, and I hope that the Select Committee on Expenditure will be able to consider that matter in the months ahead.
As my right hon. Friend said, the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was in a low key, and that is not surprising. I bet that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is glad that he is not speaking in this debate. There were a few debates on this subject when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the National Health Service, and I should like to refer to one that took place in December 1973—which is not all that long ago—when we discussed a subject that has affected the National Health Service and all the staff working within it, namely, the reorganisation of the National Health Service, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.
In December 1973, we, then silting on the Opposition side of the House, tried to persuade him to defer the introduction of the new system which followed the notorious McKinsey Report. We saw that there would be chaos after the implementation of his proposals and the introduction of the managerial system, which was alien to the whole concept of the National Health Service, but he was not prepared to listen.
We were concerned not only with the scheme which would be introduced but with the kind of appointments which were being made to the different authorities. We were concerned because there were not enough women in the administration of the NHS. We were concerned because there were not enough trade unionists or manual workers involved. We were concerned that, last December, not one medical officer had been appointed in any of the 90 areas and that, in each of 17 areas, no administrative officer or finance officer had been appointed. Posts of district community physicians had not been advertised. We foresaw considerable difficulties.
The right hon. Member said that if reorganisation were deferred, it "would

be no kindness". How wrong he was. He went on to say:
It would only prolong the uncertainties from which health service staff have been suffering for too long. … Our job now is to see that"—
the authorities are staffed
to promote the interests of staff on transfer, and, above all, to maintain the continuity of service to the patient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 220, 221.]
Splendid oratory, but we see now exactly what has happened. We have never known such confusion, frustration and militancy. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, will show a little penitence. That is what is needed from the Conservative Party.
Right hon. and hon. Members have had representations not only from the nurses but also from NALGO, yet no one has mentioned NALGO and its position in the NHS. There are 80,000 NALGO members who are very concerned about the lack of consultation in the service arid the way in which senior appointments have been made, advertised and generally handled. They are concerned about the massive uncertainty that large numbers of them face since the new system was introduced on 1st April. NALGO, together with NUPE and COHSE, have made sure that the whole country knows their difficulties. They are totally disillusioned because they were clobbered by the Pay Board when it vetoed the agreement reached by the Whitley Council about the additional duties payment which was due on reorganisation.
Enormous numbers of NHS employees have now been "latched on", that is, they are doing extra duties for which they receive no extra pay. It is no wonder that they feel upset and militant. Thousands of staff are still completely in the dark about the posts that will be available to them, and it looks as though this situation will go on for several years unless my right hon. Friend takes the problem on board.
In addition to the "latching-on" situation, the consultation situation has been farcical. The para-medical services have a very poor range of salaries. There are some physiotherapists, for instance, who after three and a quarter years training— considerable academic qualifications are


required to start training—take home £18 a week. Yet they are responsible for dealing with mentally and physically handicapped patients and for helping patients get back on their feet after operations.
Let us consider senior radiographers. I have received a letter from a senior radiographer in one of the hospitals in my constituency. She has been qualified for 10 years, and she holds a senior post. Her salary is £1,780 a year. Her take-home pay is £33 a week. All these rates of pay are less than the national average industrial wage. I have with me a copy of the journal of the Society of Radiographers. It is full of advertisements for vacant posts in hospitals, teaching hospitals and others, up and down the country. There are very many jobs on offer. I also find in this journal that an agency is advertising for senior radiographers at £40 a week, whereas the senior radiographer at the hospital in my constituency has a take-home pay of £33. Is not this a nonsense?
I find, too, an advertisement by a pharmaceutical firm, headed, "Are you ready for a new career?" By gosh, I think that most radiographers are. This firm is offering to hospital representatives a salary of up to £2,850 a year, plus a car, if they will call on hospitals and promote the sale of drugs made by the firm. For people to call on general practitioners to promote the sale of drugs, the firm is offering £2,500 a year plus a car.
With these blandishments offered to underpaid people working the National Health Service, it is not surprising that most hospitals are facing a staffing crisis. It is not surprising that a large number of hospitals, including teaching hospitals, are facing the problem of under staffing. Doctors have called attention to the fact that standards of medical care are falling because of understaffing. Beds in many new hospitals are unused or have never been brought into use because of shortage of staff. This difficulty will continue to grow unless my right hon. Friend takes drastic action.
No one has mentioned in the debate the junior hospital doctors. They are very concerned about their pay and working conditions. Some of them, too, are supplementing their pay by working for

agencies or for commercial deputising services in the time when they ought to be studying or resting. Again, the situation is deteriorating.
No one has mentioned dentists in the debate. The dental services, too, are facing a crisis situation because we are not paying dentists enough to carry out the range of conservative treatment which ought to be undertaken. Again, large numbers of dentists who were working in the National Health Service have left to work in the private sector. As many hon. Members know, in many towns we have reached a situation in which it is not possible to obtain National Health Service dentistry.
I hope, therefore, that we shall return to the House in a matter of weeks and find a report before us which will show that there will be a revolution throughout the National Health Service, but a constructive revolution, which will make it possible to win back those who have left the service. I am certain that the whole House would welcome such a report and would see that my right hon. Friend was given every help to implement it.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Ernie Money: 1 fully appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State did not want to give way when she was making her important statement. For that reason I address the first part of my brief remarks to the Under-Secretary. I ask him whether he would be good enough to deal specifically with the position of the nurses in the Ipswich and King's Lynn areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) has a similar problem—who are faced with a difficult situation regarding the problem of the re-programming for the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board. This is dealt with in Written Question No. 120 standing in my name on today's Order Paper.
The right hon. Lady made specific mention of something on account for, she said, the Trent area and southeastern area, specifically in the London area, hospital boards. But she has not mentioned those anomalies in regard to East Anglia. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman, if he can get it in time, can give us information about that, so that it can go back and be some encouragement to nurses in Suffolk and Norfolk


who at this stage are being told that they are not likely to receive what was awarded to them in April until the end of June.
The other matter I wish to raise follows remarks made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). He touched on something very important in relation to the report. Although we all welcome the appointment of Lord Halsbury's committee, I very much hope that the committee will deal not only with pay and the structure that goes with pay but with other matters also, such as standards of care, education, manpower and particularly conditions of work. I know that when a Royal Commission or any similar body is set up in these circumstances, the debates in this House are carefully considered by its members. I hope that in this respect the Halsbury Committee will consider specifically some other things which, from conversations with members of the nursing profession, I find are causing great distress, particularly the question of unsocial hours of work. Nurses still have the longest working week of any of the caring professions. This inevitably involves working extremely long hours and bites into their social life; it involves them in filling in for other social services which do not provide a 24-hour service. Another matter which is causing great distress is that in order to meet the problems of the basic economic structure many of them have to take on additional jobs by way of "moonlighting".
A second problem is the question of the price—and, I am afraid, occasionally of the quality—of meals in hospital canteens and the lack of uniformity in pricing policy. In many cases the question of study leave gives rise to a great deal of uncertainty because too often funds are not made available for members of the profession by different local authorities.
Finally there is the need for an occupational health service for all health service employees. The Secretary of State mentioned the most impressive document which has been put forward by the Royal College of Nursing and the National Council of Nurses, "The State of Nursing, 1974". This document stressed that the concern of the profession was not simply with the question of material reward, high though that must

now rank in the financial circumstances in which the profession stands. It also stressed that the profession was concerned fundamentally both with the general conditions of service for the profession and in particular the extent to which these affected the way in which employees are able to serve their patients.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Pefer Hardy: I shall endeavour to emulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) in his interesting and brief speech, none the worse for being brief. The points he made were quite legitimate. It is a great pity that the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who preceded him in speaking from the other side, indulged in a speech in which she attacked the present Government for what she described as the outrageous exploitation of nurses, treated the House to a survey of the hospitals in her constituency, no doubt in anticipation of a General Election, and then promptly departed without observing the courtesy of offering my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) very much attention.
I wish to speak briefly, and relatively constructively, and I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Public Employees which has over 200,000 of its members engaged in the National Health Service. The union will give two loud cheers and perhaps a third, a little less loud, for the Secretary of State's speech. Certainly, the first two cheers will be sizeable and loud. Basically, those of us in NUPE concerned about the hospital service would have preferred a very deep exhaustive, in-depth study of the whole question of manning in the National Health Service. We realise, however, that would be a very large job and therefore, while we hope that the other occupations in the health service will not be ignored, we welcome the detailed study of the nurses' problems. We hope, too, that when the committee completes its deliberations the position of the physiotherapists, the radiographers, the medical technicians and others may be given similar consideration because their position is as serious as that of the nurses.
The debate has been interesting, but more detailed figures could have been given even at this stage. Staff nurses at


present receive 64p an hour; State-enrolled nurses 57p an hour; and a charge nurse, who is at the top of the scale, after nine years' experience and service in that grade, receives £1 an hour or £2,097 a year. That for a person with considerable responsibility, who has perhaps engaged in a first-line management course, and who will have a great deal of experience, probably with qualifications in advance of the State-registered nurses is scarcely sufficient.
Perhaps the nurses are to some extent at fault because of their lack of organisation. But we cannot blame the politicians or the nurses. We must look at the attitude of British society. A society which is prepared to pay shorthand typists, who are not necessarily highly qualified, perhaps 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. more than it pays an experienced and qualified nurse deserves the sort of health service it will be getting unless my right hon. Friend's activities bear fruit. The report upon the South Ockenden Hospital described a villa which accommodated 76 mentally subnormal patients, 30 of them incontinent, which was staffed by four nurses and one orderly. A society which is prepared to tolerate that sort of thing will eventually get the health service it deserves.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will persist in her decision and determination to press the case of the health service nurses, because that is necessary. It may be that many people are happy to accept that if the mentally sick and the geriatric patients are out of sight and out of mind they will not put a strain on the public purse. If that is the case, the situation in Britain will become even more severe and conditions in the health service will be such as to rouse the nurses and their colleagues to even greater anger than they have now begun to feel.
I am pleased that some hon. Members opposite have not engaged in an exercise to try to blame the Government, who have been in office for less than three months, for the situation which exists. To have done so would have been to cheapen politics. I hope the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Ipswich will be echoed by his hon. Friends. I hope that they will be able

and willing to express sincere applause and congratulation for the important step forward announced by my right hon. Friend today and for the significant improvement we hope it will bring for the nurses.

9.4 p.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: I must begin by declaring an interest, since I work as a general practitioner in the health service. During the Whitsun Recess I might do a great deal of work in that capacity.
The debate is an important occasion. What we say and do tonight is of great importance. In the debate yesterday many hon. Members suggested that we had no real power and that what we said did not matter. We should not forget, however, that the public believe that we have the power as Members of Parliament to demand that certain things must happen.
Practically every hon. Member has received letters from nurses, physiotherapists and others in the service. We have all been writing back to say that we are entirely in support of their case. Therefore I should like to feel that none of us will leave here without feeling that something will be done.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady's statement will have that effect. I listened to it very carefully, and it seemed to me that some of her commitments were unambiguous. She would have great difficulty in getting out of some of the things she said, if she wanted to do so, though I do not think that she ever will. I believe that what she said will be enough to restore the climate to some kind of tranquillity.
There are two aspects to the problem. First, there is our obligation to what are fundamentally our employees. We employ them in the National Health Service. Many of them—nurses, physiotherapists and so on—are living in desperate difficulties. One hon. Member referred to moonlighting to keep body and soul together. It is true that that happens, particularly in the case of married couples both of whom work in the health service—the nurse married to a male nurse, the physiotherapist married to a nurse. Such couples are often in extreme financial difficulty.
We have a second obligation to the health service. We spent a long time on reorganisation of administration. Administration is important, but the efficiency of the health service depends far more on the number and the quality of the people who do the work than on anything else. We are now experiencing shortages of those who do the work in almost every capacity.
Where there are such shortages the problem snowballs. If a hospital becomes short of one or two nurses, it soon becomes much shorter of nurses. One girl with inadequate training and experience may be left to exercise responsibility over a ward at night. She often goes home weeping with nerves and fatigue on her day off, and sometimes does not return because she is frightened of the job. We lose nurses because there is a shortage of them, and we are losing physiotherapists, radiographers and radiotherapists for the same reason.
We see the same thing even in medicine. If a hospital advertises for nine house surgeons, it will have no applicants, because any doctor who applies knows that he may be the only applicant and that he will then be doing nine people's work. If a hospital advertises for one house surgeon, it will have many applicants. If we do not remedy shortages in staffing, they will snowball, and the health service in the area concerned can come near to collapse.
I am very glad that so many hon. Members have referred to all the different workers. It is regrettable that my own profession has sometimes appeared to be rather more preoccupied with doctors' economic and financial problems than with the problems of some of the other workers in the health service. I am very happy that doctors are now coming out wholeheartedly in support of the ancillary workers within the service. The professions all act together in the service, and I hope that we, too, will regard them as being all together.
Each profession has its special problems. The radiographers have on-call payments that are wholly inadequate. Speech therapists have almost

disappeared. We cannot recruit them because of inadequate remuneration.
We have a special obligation today, for three reasons. First, the nature of the work of those employed in the health service makes it impossible for them to use the industrial weapons used by so many workers. Secondly, because they are fundamentally employed by a monopoly employer, they are in a very weak bargaining position. Thirdly, they are in effect civil servants. When a Government wish to control wages, they tend to do so with the only wages under their control, those of the Civil Service. We have seen that over and over again, right back to the time of the Geddes axe.
We have a special responsibility to all those concerned. I hope that the debate will show that we have fulfilled that responsibility.
Mr. Speaker asked particularly for short speeches from Front Bench spokesmen. We on the Liberal Bench are all Front Bench spokesmen, so I shall follow that advice and sit down very soon.
The right hon. Lady said that she hoped the present excitement would die down. I hope that every hon. Member feels that the excitement should die down by our making sure that the people within the National Health Service are convinced that they will at least receive justice.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: . I was asked a few months ago whether I would be a sponsored Member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. I agreed on the strict understanding that I should speak exactly as 1 felt without any kind of pressure from the confederation. I am speaking on that understanding.
I do not know whether the confederation will be wholeheartedly and unconditionally enthusiastic about the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that its criticism will be a little less vehement than it would have been if she had not made her statement. I hope that it will reconsider the action it was proposing to bring into effect within a few days.
I say at the outset that ever since the National Health Service was inaugurated we have had the service that we have


deserved. I do not blame or criticise any Government for the service's faults. The public are at fault for tolerating the conditions in which they are treated by the service when they go into hospital. I have said before that we all salve our consciences when we have been in hospital by saying what wonderful treatment we have received, but we then forget about it. Perhaps we give a box of chocolates to the nurse, say goodbye and that we shall call in to see her, and that is that.
I hope that I might be allowed one or two slightly acid comments. My right hon. Friend's statement was relatively short of statistics. It was a fairly general statement on a review that is to report at some unspecified date. The chairman was named and guarantees were given about the representation of the nurses. 1 hope that will mean that not only the nursing officers but the junior staff will be represented.
One of the great shortcomings of the Whitley Council procedure is that the junior staff are not represented. I hope that the Whitley Council machinery, and particularly the nurses' and midwives' section, will be examined with a view to overhaul. I hope too that we might have some specific figures from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. My right hon. Friend must have worked out what the backdating will amount to. She must have worked out the figures relating to the advances this month that will date back to 1st April. I should like to know her estimate and where the money is coming from.
My right hon. Friend's initial reaction when the campaign started was that if an improvement were made, cuts within the service would have to be made by her Department. I was appalled when my Government accepted without question the cuts that were announced in the previous Government's White Paper last December. It was then announced that there would be £111 million worth of cuts in the health and personal social services throughout the United Kingdom, including a cut of just over £40 million on hospital and community services. The Government must know the sort of figure they have in mind for immediate payment to the nurses this month. They must know where they will get it from. I ask

specifically where they are going to get it from other than cutting still further the present Estimates.
The sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee on which I am serving is to demand a detailed explanation of how the £111 million cut was arrived at and why the present Government accepted it without question. Did they accept the same arguments as the Conservative Government accepted? Did they accept the same priorities? If they did, there is something radically wrong.
My post-bag, like that of other hon. Members has been filled by correspondence on this subject in the last few weeks. In many ways it is a compliment to the present Government that the militancy of the nursing profession is far greater under a Labour Government than under a Tory Government. I suspect that this is a backhanded compliment, because the nurses know that generally speaking a Labour Government are more compassionate than a Tory Government on these matters.
When the Conservative Party went to the country in February, it said that it wanted to continue firm and fair government. Fair to whom? Certainly not the nurses. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) boasted that 6 million workers, including the nurses, had accepted increases under phase 3. He knew very well that the nurses accepted because they could not do otherwise. They accepted under duress. They are one of the weaker sections who would not use the strike weapon.
I want to quote two cases to let the House and the country understand just what slavery we have in this country today. The first example is of a male three-year student nurse, with a wife and family, in Lincoln. He is living-in. His net pay in the month was £85-76—about £21 a week on which to keep a wife and four children. That pay included £440 overtime.
Worse than that is the case of a Mauritian girl who writes:
I came to this country in 1970. I was asked to follow a 2 year course for pupil nurse. I passed my examination about two years ago. The wage then plus overtime was fairly reasonable. Now I have started a post-registration course for 3 years. The wage I came out with last week was £10·82.


I have her pay slip here to confirm it.
We all know that in London particularly and in other big cities the hospitals would come to a grinding halt if it were not for coloured personnel. A lot of them were brought here by Mr. Enoch Powell when he was Minister of Health. Now he wants to send them all home. If they went, the hospitals would close. This is a form of colonial exploitation which is still going on.
I hope that the Halsbury Committee will have a look at the extent to which we are using these girls from overseas, because the Briggs Committee said that it was highly unsatisfactory that in many cases we should have to take more nurses from Mauritius, Barbados, Jamaica and elsewhere than those countries have in total themselves.
I hope we shall get from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary some specific answers to my specific questions. I also hope that the full cost of implementing whatever Halsbury recommends will not be criticised too much by the Opposition, even though the recommendations are bound to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The money will have to come from one source or another. The cost will have to go either on the insurance stamp or on tax, and I hope that it goes on tax. But I trust that when we come to implement the proposals the Opposition will not say that Labour Governments increase taxation.
I believe that even if their wages were trebled the nurses would not be getting enough. If the girl from Mauritius whom I mentioned as getting £10·82 had her wage increased to £32, who would say that she was a greedy girl? I doubt whether anyone in the House would say that.
It is all very well saying that any award will be back-dated. Reference was made earlier to how we settled the miners' dispute. During the General Election campaign I said to miners in my constituency that I regarded the nurses as being as vital a section of the community as the miners. We settled with the miners within a week, and we ought to give an interim settlement to the nurses within a week. I do not mince my words. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was very acceptable, although she was pressurised into action;

but she has been very responsible, as we expected her to be. In my view, however, what she announced is not enough, and I hope she will reconsider the possibility of giving a sum—COHSE has quoted a figure of £100 million but I am not quoting one—as a gesture within the next few weeks.
What about militancy amongst nurses? They are not Left-wing Reds under the bed. They are people who are simply fed up to the teeth with being exploited by all types of Governments during the past 25 years. We must remedy the situation very quickly or there will be serious trouble.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer: J am certain that all hon. Members on the Opposition side, indeed the whole House, will welcome the inquiry which has been announced and that we shall give full support when the recommendations are made.
I wish to mention matters concerning fringe benefits. I believe that there is a strong case to be made for the inquiry to be wide ranging and to consider benefits. I should like the inquiry to consider the position of students and the privileges they have as nurses. The full privileges which other students get when attending university could be extended to nurses, and that would give them some slight benefit.
Travel allowances and travel warrants should also be considered for all those in the nursing profession and in the paramedical services. These girls and men have only limited time in which to get away to their homes. Time is precious to them and often they cannot afford the money needed to travel, and so they stay in the hospitals when they could be at home with their parents having a well-deserved break.
Reference has been made to meals. It is my contention, supported by many people in the nursing profession, that we should abolish payment for meals. In every hospital I know of where nurses have to pay for meals it is found that they do not buy them, because they have run out of money. They should have the money. It seems absurd that a shorthand-typist can collect luncheon vouchers while a nurse must pay for her meals. I hope that the terms of the


inquiry will permit this problem to be examined.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I must declare an interest in that I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. I also have another interest in this matter in as much as I am a member of the South-East Thames Regional Hospital Authority. It is not just an interest, it is a responsibility.
As the publication of the South Ockendon report showed the other day, when things go wrong in the health service it is proper that ultimately the House and the Government should point their finger at those who have failed in their duty. Things are going wrong in the health service. It is the biggest employer of manpower in Britain. It has 850,000 employees of whom 310,000 are nurses. In my own locality there are about 35,000 nurses.
Time is not on our side. I welcome the right hon. Lady's immediate establishment of the Halsbury Committee, which I hope will report to the House quickly. The House, people outside, patients, even auxiliary hospital workers, want to know why hospital cleaners are sometimes paid more than the nurses looking after patients with the sophisticated type of nursing required, for example, in intensive care. I have recently had the opportunity to study this in hospitals. I do not see my job primarily as an administrator of the hospital service. I believe that I should be trying to find out what is going on and what are the problems. I was shocked to hear last week that some nurses are driven to "moonlighting", to taking on extra work outside their normal nursing duties as waitresses and even barmaids to earn money.
The sort of pay given in the Health Service is a disgrace. It is remarkable that in The Times today there are advertisements for secretaries offering salaries ranging from £2,100 a year to £2,500 plus a car, age immaterial. One, which has been placed by three young doctors in an "easy-going practice" seeks a secretary at £1,850 a year. This is more than is paid to a senior ward sister on night duty. It is intolerable. Let us consider the pay under the Whitley scales of a

senior nursing officer. For those who do not recognise the new term, that is a matron. Such a person in charge of a hospital of 300 to 400 beds is getting less than some of those secretaries because her pay scale as from 1st April this year starts at £2,460 rising to £2,949.
We all have a responsibility. I have never had a great deal of time either in my heart or my head for the Pay Board. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not feel that the Secretary of State for Employment is standing in her way and that the Pay Board is the structure which must decide for us what people in the service of the sick should be paid. It is not the Pay Board which must make these complicated decisions, not the civil servants, not those bewildered out-of-touch staff officers; it is hon. Members. I hope that when the right hon. Lady gets the report, she will quickly come to the House and say what she is determined to do on behalf of these underpaid people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I should like to express my gratitude for the very brief speeches and the way in which hon. Members have co-operated.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I too must declare an interest, a new kind of interest which I might describe as a once and future interest, in that I have been in the past and may be in the future a director of the Provident Association for Medical Care.
There is no need to emphasise that the sympathy of the House for the nurses and other professions which we have been considering in the debate has come through strongly. That in itself means that the debate has had some value. Perhaps I could also not unreasonably claim that the debate has had a particular value in that it has jollied along the Secretary of State to declare a few days earlier than would otherwise have been the case her intention to set up an inquiry. I can, therefore, at least claim a few days' extra pay for the nurses.
What has come through is the fact that people are aware that we have to face not only the problem of pay but also—as the excellent report of the Royal College of Nursing brought out—the sheer hard work that has to be done and, as my


hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) made so clear, the under-staffing. It is right that these facts should have come through so forcefully in the debate.
The Opposition wholly welcome the inquiry which the Secretary of State has announced. It is absolutely right that this step should be taken, and we are glad that the inquiry will cover conditions of service as well as pay. We note that the implications of the inquiry will extend to other professions, although it will not directly cover them.
Lord Halsbury has a considerable problem. Reasonably, there is a desire, on the one hand, for great speed on his part and, on the other hand, that he should be thorough and cover a wide variety of aspects. We wish him every possible success and look forward to receiving the report soon.
I strongly support the Secretary of State in one other comment she made. I sincerely hope, in the light of today's announcement, that COHSE and other unions will call off any industrial action that they have been contemplating. There is every justification for their doing so. I still adhere to the old-fashioned view that it is sad when the professions turn to industrial action. We fully support the Secretary of State in her plea to COHSE.
Now that the Secretary of State has arrived, I must refute what she said about the Conservative approach to incomes policy. She was extremely unfair about the relativities procedure, which was specifically designed to introduce a measure of flexibility and which would have been an indispensable tool if and when we moved on from a statutory or compulsory policy to a voluntary policy. There was no doubt that the nurses were one of the categories most likely to be referred to the relativities procedure, and the Secretary of State was a little unfair in what she said. She may find the transition to a voluntary policy a little more difficult than she suggested. I remind her of the words of her right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his recent book, "Socialism Now":
It is the purest wishful thinking to suppose that … Government can adopt a dirigiste attitude to the control of prices, but a laissez-faire attitude to the determination of incomes.

We rather resent the Secretary of State's attitude towards being questioned about her announcement. There are moments when she seems like a lady bountiful who dislikes anyone intruding into her private estate.
I particularly wish to speak on the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) who seems, no doubt temporarily, to have deserted the Chamber. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) reminded us, the question how to find enough to pay for the health service professions and also for the unskilled or less skilled occupations has bedevilled us for many years. It is a profoundly difficult problem. This problem may become more rather than less acute as the years go by.
The so-called caring professions rightly do not in these modern days accept that their reward should largely have to be a matter of job satisfaction or vocational feeling. They rightly feel, particularly in a time of acute inflation, that they should be paid a proper and fair salary or wage. Nevertheless, the problem of overall resources unquestionably grows harder, not easier.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health in a parliamentary reply only a few days ago said that pay now accounts for about 49 per cent, of National Health Service expenditure. The Government have said that it is their policy to tip the balance more in the direction of helping staff rather than in other directions. They have said—and I do not think they are necessarily wrong—that their priority is to see that the staff comes first.
We do not grumble about that view, but we are right to ask the Under-Secretary the question, which was so well put to him by the hon. Member for Fife, Central—namely, what are the likely implications of whatever the Halsbury Report produces on the rest of the National Health Service? This is a question of tremendous importance and the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Social Services must have carefully considered it in coming to the decision which has been announced today.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State in his reply could lift the veil on the situation. If we look at the various other


commitments in the National Health Service we observe that there is every prospect that vast sums of money will have to be made available for other needs as well. The Government have a commitment to abolish prescription charges, although I hope that at this time that commitment will be put on one side. It would be an indefensible action at a time of acute financial shortage.
We must also bear in mind the important commitment or undertaking made by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State in the light of the South Ockendon Report. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) who said that there was the most appalling overcrowding in that hospital. The Secretary of State reacted to that view recently by saying at a Press conference
Somewhere, God knows how, we must find the resources. Other things will have to take second place.
She made it quite clear, as she did in the House today, that she regards it as vital that we should find the resources needed to prevent anything remotely resembling what happened at South Ockendon. That is another important charge on the National Health Service. 
Then there is the commitment— admittedly a much smaller one—to a totally free family planning service. In the longer term there is the problem—which is perhaps as difficult as any in the National Health Service—involved in the change in the structure of our population. The proportion of population in the older groups has been getting steadily larger and will continue to do so. At the same time at certain moments we have sharp increases at the younger end of the scale. These are matters on which we should have as clear an idea as possible whether we shall cope with them.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say whether the Secretary of State's announcement made today means that there will have to be a further clamp down on capital spending. The hon. Member for Fife, Central mentioned this topic and asked why the Labour Government had not rejected the cuts which the Conservative Administration made last December. He is right to say that the Labour Government have not taken that course and, if anything, the signs are that pressures in this respect will be intensified. Nobody welcomes the

cuts, but they have been accepted by the Government. Therefore, it is as well to ask what the prospects for capital spending will be. In other words, will the extra money that is to be made available to the nurses have further adverse effects on capital spending in the hospital sector and also in the local authority sphere?
There are many very grave needs to be met. I know from my constituency that our own Stoke Mandeville Hospital is desperately in need of the second phase of its rebuilding programme. Right across the country, people will ask what is to happen to these projects which are so important. We should like the Under-Secretary to say at least a word or two about whether the additional money which is coming for the nurses will come out of additional funds or out of the existing total which has been allocated to the National Health Service.
We welcome the announcement about the inquiry. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that it will take in health visitors. One of the most interesting and perhaps the most thought-provoking quotations from the RCN document which the Halsbury Committee presumably will consider is where the document says:
The health visitor, who must hold two statutory qualifications and may well hold more and whose training covers a minimum of 4½ years, receives a salary about £400 less than the qualified social worker and at the maximum about £100 less than the unqualified social worker.
In other words, there are some very interesting questions to be asked in terms of comparisons between these caring professions and other professions which in their way are also caring—in this instance, social work.
I wish to say a brief word about doctors and dentists. This debate, in view of the right hon. Lady's announcement, not unnaturally has concentrated on nurses. But there are urgent problems to be faced concerning doctors and dentists, especially dentists, as one hon. Member reminded us.
The British Dental Association is extremely concerned about the present position of dentists. It argues that, during the period 1972–73, there was a substantial shortfall from the target earning of £5,050 which the review body had recommended. It says that the shortfall was


£350 and that this is made worse by the fact that the fees for the 1973–74 period were based on a 5 per cent, increase on the fees for the previous year. But, as I have said, the fees received in the previous year fell below what the review body recommended. In other words, the dentists have been doubly hit.
In addition, the materials which dentists use have soared in cost because of the increase in the price of gold, and so on, and the increase in the cost of laboratory processing work. Clearly some dental work has now become thoroughly uneconomic. As a result, dentists are refusing to do it within the National Health Service. This is a matter which the House must recognise to be very important.
The doctors also have their problems. Reference has been made to the junior hospital doctors. At the same time, the consultants also feel that they have been left behind. In the medical profession, I am afraid that there is some risk of a general loss of confidence in the review body procedure and even some tendency to talk about going back to those direct negotiations which were so deplored a few years ago.
I do not blame the Secretary of State for any of this. I simply say that these are very important matters. If the Under-Secretary can say anything about them, even to the extent of saying when we can expect the findings of the review body to be published, the House will be grateful and it will add something else to this debate.
As hon. Members have said again and again, there is great concern about the other professions and about the technical staffs—the radiographers, physiotherapists, speech therapists and so on. I know from my own constituency, which is singularly rich in medical services and which has the famous hospital at Stoke Mandeville as well as a number of others, how deep these problems are and how difficult it is to get these groups of people. It is important that we should face these problems.
The specific point about these groups is that there seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the slowness and clumsiness of the Whitley set-up. This point has been made by a number of

para-medical professions. Again, it is not unreasonable to ask the Under-Secretary to tell us whether the Government have yet formed any views.
I believe that the debate has been worth while. We welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will meet some of the important points that have been made in the debate.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): I think it is fair to say, perhaps with qualifications, that there has been a broad acceptance by the House of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and a welcome for the independent inquiry that she was able to announce today.
Many hon. Members have stressed the importance they attach to the fact that the inquiry should take in conditions of service as well as pay. Without exception, all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have stressed the need for urgency and speed. When Lord Halsbury consented to chair the inquiry he made it clear to my right hon. Friend that he too attached considerable importance to speed.
There is a problem here. The inquiry must be thorough, but it has to cover many different aspects. Indeed, if all the matters that have been mentioned were to come within the terms of reference of the inquiry its length would be extended considerably. Of course there is a need for speed. That is accepted by the chairman, and we attach great importance to having such an experienced chairman with a comprehensive knowledge of the health service and a staff already in existence to help him. We think that this will give the speed that we accept as being necessary.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) referred to our obligation to employees. In the National Health Service the Government are the largest single employer in the country with over 800,000 employees. Many hon. Members, while emphasising the importance of nurses, particularly as their first priority, have rightly drawn attention to other sections of the National Health Service. We


cannot look at any one section in isolation. They all work for the National Health Service.
Sadly there are many sections where pay has lagged behind compared with other professions and industries. Equally there has been a common acceptance throughout the debate that the highest priorities are the nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine.
Since taking office my right hon. Friend has consistently stressed that we attach great importance to people. We really believe that, inasmuch as we have to choose between priorities, the priority for the National Health Service is people before buildings. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) must be careful not to argue this matter both ways. We all want more resources for the National Health Service, and no one will strive harder for those resources than my right hon. Friend, but there comes a time when we must choose, and we have to recognise what has happened historically.
I would point out to hon. Members on both sides who will press for greater capital allocations, new district general hospitals and health centres that in most cases increased capital allocation brings in its train increased revenue applications. This is a fact of life with which we have to work.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) made an impassioned speech about free meals. I think he should speak to many more nurses. It was the wish of the profession than they should give up free meals. The nurses do not want charity. They want to be treated as normal people with proper salaries and to make their own choice. I believe that they would consider free meals to be a retrograde step.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) speaks with the experience of being a member of a regional health authority. He understands the difficulties. He raised the problem, as many other hon. Members did, of comparing salaries earned by women between the ages of 20 and 30. There have been frequent references during the debate to how much a secretary can expect to earn compared with the amount paid to a senior ward sister on night duty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked how much

the stage 3 settlement was worth. The answer is that it is worth £56 million a year or £4·6 million a month. We do not know how much money nurses will get in back pay because they have not been paid in May. There are different amounts for different grades, but a staff nurse will get an increase of £12·25 a month gross.
My hon. Friend also asked about the total cost of the settlement. I think he is in danger of asking for it both ways. My right hon. Friend gave a pledge that the Government would not seek to fetter the negotiations and the inquiry, and we could not possibly come to the House and say that the inquiry was to take place and that we could put a figure of cost on it before it had even reported.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) raised a problem about nurses in his constituency. I assure him that they will be treated in the same way as others and that we shall make a payment on account for the month they have been held up by the negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) mentioned among other things the problem of medical technicians. This is an immediate problem affecting 3,000 medical, physics and physiological measurement technicians whose work has been looked at by the Whitley Council in accordance with the January 1972 award of the Industrial Arbitration Board. This has caused some problems. Both sides have discussed the difficulties and neither side intends breaching any of the stage 3 Pay Code provisions. I am advising them that I see no reason why they should not continue their discussions on the recommendations of the Industrial Arbitration Board, and I hope that the difficulty can be resolved.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of the Briggs Report. The hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), in an extremely intemperate speech, said that the Government's recommendations on the Briggs Report had attempted to divide the profession. I should like to quote what the Royal College of Nursing said in the memorandum that has gone to hon. Members:
the profession as a whole, and the membership of the RCN in particular, has been disappointed, disillusioned, and has become progressively frustrated and exasperated at the inexcusable delay of the Government in stating


its policy on the findings of the Committee on Nursing.
The College conveyed its feelings in a telegram to us. If we had accepted the implications of the Briggs Report without providing any money for its implementation, how cynical that would have been. How often have Governments in the past willed the end and not been prepared to provide the means?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—

Dr. Owen: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Lady came into the debate and left the Chamber as soon as she had finished speaking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) raised many issues. She and the hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the question of dentists. Recently my right hon. Friend and I listened with considerable sympathy when representatives of the dental profession came to see us about the economic difficulties facing practitioners who provide dental treatment under the National Health Service arrangements. We share their anxiety to preserve an effective general dental service and will consider many of the useful suggestions which have been made to us.
There is, however, one urgent issue which clearly needs to be dealt with. The established machinery for implementing recommended increases in the average net incomes and practice expenses of general dental practitioners is very slow. We have therefore arranged, both as a gesture of our good faith and in a genuine attempt to alleviate to some extent the immediate pressure under which dental practitioners are providing their services, that fees scheduled by the Dental Estimates Board from 1st April will be increased by 6 per cent. This will represent a payment on account roughly equivalent to an increase of 10 per cent. in practice payments. The first payment in respect of April, May and June will be made next month and subsequent payments will be made monthly until a revised scale of fees is introduced. We attach great importance to the problems of dentists at the moment and we hope that we will be able to meet many of their difficulties.
The hon. Member also asked me about the Doctors and Dentists Review Body's report. The Government have received this report and it will be urgently considered. We should like to publish it as soon as possible, but there are printing difficulties, apart from the problem of servicing it—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister has described me as intemperate, will he accept that I was quoting from the report of the Royal College of Nursing, which said—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: —that the Royal College was
immediately apprehensive that such a limited "—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: —
measure would aggravate the unrest and discontent in the profession."?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Dr. Owen: The House—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order. Is it not a convention of the House that when a Minister attacks an hon. Member he normally, as a matter of courtesy, gives way to that hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: It may be a matter of courtesy or not, but it is not a point of order.

Dr. Owen: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who has just come into the Chamber, knows that in a very short debate it would always help if an hon. Member who has made points which might be challenged then stayed so that she could be answered immediately.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was away for only five minutes.

Dr. Owen: Many other points have been raised in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) mentioned a number of matters arising out of his own knowledge of the medical profession. He mentioned particularly the student nurses. My hon. Friend has apologised to me for the fact


that he cannot stay. Several hon. Members have pressed upon me arguments for the payment of the adult rate at the age of 18, as well as the question of payment for weekends and shifts. These and many other issues will obviously be some of the most pressing aspects to be discussed by the committee when it begins its work. Indeed, many of these things can be started and processed now.
One of the responsibilities that we all have in as large a service as this is to face the necessity to choose. This is the problem that the House consistently faces. The spirit of this debate has been that the nurses deserve more money and that this House wishes to see greater resources paid to people who devote long and dedicated service to the National Health Service. I have no doubt that the quality of the service overall depends on the dedication

of those who work in it. We can have any number of buildings or any number of new hospitals, but unless we have the people to staff them and the dedication to go with that staffing, whatever the buildings are, they will fail in their major purpose.
It is to create a new atmosphere in the National Health Service, in which pay can be negotiated as openly and as sensibly as possible, that we on this side are now dedicated. It will be a difficult task, and we ask hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the welfare of the National Health Service to help us in that orderly movement away from a strict, rigid statutory policy towards a voluntary policy by agreement.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

LOCAL AUTHORITY LOANS

10 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I beg to move,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
I hope that that will reduce the noise in the Chamber.
This order increases by £1,000 million the amount available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for lending to local authorities. The Finance Act 1972 made available for this purpose a sum of £1,000 million and gave the Treasury power, by order subject to affirmative resolution of this House, to increase this sum by amounts of up to £1,000 million on each of three subsequent occasions.
This is the second such order. The previous order was made last July and increased the amount available by £1,000 million to £2,000 million. This order increases the amount to £3,000 million.
As of today, 23rd May 1974, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had £83 million available for lending. At the present rate of lending, that sum will run out before the end of next month. The House is therefore asked to approve this order now so that the flow of essential capital funds, expected to amount to £1,625 million during the current financial year, may be maintained. This forecast figure was published in March in the White Paper on the National Loans Fund. At the expected rate of lending to local authorities, the £1,000 million made available by this order will last only until December. A further order will, therefore, be needed before the end of the year.
I remind the House that the order does not in itself sanction any increase in local authorities' capital spending. Local authorities are currently entitled to borrow from the commissioners 30 per cent.

of their net capital requirements, or 40 per cent. if they are in the less prosperous regions, plus a further element to assist them with the re-financing of existing debt as it matures. The purpose of the order is simply to ensure that the commissioners have available the funds necessary to meet these obligations.
Perhaps I may say that I hope that the House will join with me in expressing thanks to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the service that they have continued to give with such skill and, of course on an entirely voluntary basis.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: 1 welcome the Chief Secretary to the late night show in place of the usual performer in the shape of the Financial Secretary, who is not with us tonight. Consistency has always been the strong feature of the Opposition, and I join the Chief Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I must have spoken on this issue from both sides of the House on a number of occasions. Certainly the Chief Secretary is right to pay tribute to the commissioners, and I am delighted to join him in that tribute.
I welcome the Chief Secretary to the late night show because it is worth recalling exactly how many measures have been introduced by the present Government at roughly this hour of the night or later during the last few weeks. We have had one measure concerned with food subsidies and an extension of the Contingencies Fund which involves an amount of public expenditure of about £50 million. We had an estimate concerned with mortgage subsidies, which was then embodied in a Consolidated Fund Bill, for a sum of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these are passing references.

Mr. Higgins: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, no. I am seeking to make a quite specific point, which is the cumulative effect of the measures the Government have introduced, and this particular order is increasing the cumulative effect still more. I do not think, therefore, that this is a passing reference. I am seeking to make a positive argument, but of course I will bear in mind the point you have made. We have had one extension


of £50 million, another of £500 million, and now we are being asked to authorise an extension by a further £1,000 million. If we cumulate these, it comes to a grand total of over £1,500 million authorised at this hour of the night in the course of the past three weeks or so.
This must be seen against the background of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget debate, when he took great credit for reducing the Budget deficit. It is true that this order is concerned with local authority expenditure, but none the less the economic effect is the same. It is all very well to say in a Budget speech that the Budget deficit or the borrowing requirement is to be controlled; but since then we have had these vast sums of additional authorisation all of them, one cannot help feeling, necessary as a result of the Government running out of cash, whether Contingency Fund, Consolidated Fund or, as in this case, local loans finance. Therefore, we need to look at it in that context, and it is right and proper that we should ask the Chief Secretary to give us a little more detail of the actual likely pattern of expenditure.
Many of the Chancellor's economic statements have been related, for example in connection with corporation tax and the cash flow of companies, to the pattern of expenditure within the coming year. I would hope, therefore, that he can give us some idea, when he speaks of a total sum of £1,625 million— a vast sum of money even by present-day standards—of the periods in which these are to be concentrated, because if we are to have some idea of the flow between the various sectors of the economy and the way in which the impact of this order is likely to be effective it is necessary for us to know that.
A second specific point is that the order is founded on the one hand on Section 132 of the Finance Act 1972, which in turn refers back to the National Loans Act, 1968. That Act lays down the terms on which loans can be made and deals with the question of rate of interest. If I understand the proposal correctly, one of the groups which will be able to call on funds made available by this order, if we approve it this evening, will be water authorities. I gave the Chief Secretary notice of this as I would

not like to spring a question on water authorities on him at short notice. As I understand it, water authorities are amongst eligible borrowers of the extra £1,000 million covered by this order. That being so, the question of water authority rates is a matter of considerable controversy.
In the last few days I have had reason to go into the exact financial provision they are making. One of the arguments put forward is that water rates have increased substantially because of the terms on which water authorities are allowed to borrow. I understand that the present rate, fixed by the Treasury under the 1968 Act, is a fraction over 16 per cent.—but only, I am told, on the basis of a 25-year term. I would be glad if the Chief Secretary could confirm whether that is correct, because he and his hon. Friends have told us frequently in recent days that they expect interest rates to fall. The Paymaster-General, who has occasionally been a little "cagey" about it, said that interest rates will fall, if not immediately, after a period of time, though he would not pin himself down to precisely how long a period. It seems somewhat unreasonable that if that is the Paymaster-General's view, and, presumably, the Chief Secretary's as well, they should then say that the terms on which the eligible borrowers shall borrow shall be a basis of 25 years and the very high rate of interest which I understand is being charged at the moment.
I should be grateful, therefore, if the Chief Secretary will confirm that the situation is as I have explained it. I may be mistaken, of course, but I should like to know, or to be told whether the Treasury is charging the rate of interest I have described only on the duration of the loan which has been specified. If that is so we should like to know whether, if the authorities borrow at that rate and the rate of interest falls—and I express some doubts on that—they will be able to renegotiate the loan from the Public Works Loan Board at a lower rate of interest in the course of the term; that is to say, not when the loan falls in but at an intermediate stage?

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I had not realised that if I caught your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be taking


part in a late night show. I do not think that I am elegant either as a stripper or a streaker. I shall content myself with referring to the order, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has pointed out, is certainly expensive. It is a draft order which, if the House approves it, will sanction the loan of a further £1,000 million to local authorities. That means over £100 million in interest or, if my hon. Friend is right in referring to a rate of 16 per cent. a lot more than that. That means that another £40 million or £60 million a year will go on to the rate bill in the form of interest on money borrowed in this way. It means even more than that because, as the Chief Secretary says, it represents 30 per cent. and in some cases 40 per cent. of the permitted borrowing of a local authority, so that my figure represents only one-third of the local authority borrowing.
If we approve the draft order, therefore, we are nodding our approval of an increase of about £120 million a year in the rates. The rates will provide 40 per cent. of the interest and the rate support grant the remainder. With the current national explosion over rates, that should certainly cause us to pause for thought before we approve the order, but, to be practical about it, if we do not approve it and if we do not make £1,000 million available from the National Loans Fund the local authorities will still be at liberty to borrow the money elsewhere. At least they would be at liberty to borrow up to the limit which the Government have set outside the ambit of the order.
It is only right when we are asked to approve an order of this kind that we should consider to what extent it is an encouragement to increase the burden on the ratepayer. Loans to local authorities from the National Loans Fund have increased enormously even over the last four years. In 1971–72 the figure was £1,038 million; in 1972–73 it was £1,225 million; in 1973–74 the estimated out-turn is £1,367 million and this year it is estimated at £1,625 million. That is a 62 per cent. rise in four years. I do not have the figure for the total loan debt of local authorities later than 1972, but in April of that year the figure for England and Wales was £15,287 million. That was two or three years ago. I imagine that it is nearing the £20,000 million

now. I cannot say how much of that was borrowed from the National Loans Fund, but I suppose it would be about a third.
The debt charges on that £15,000 million in 1972 were £1,273 million, which was more than one-fifth of local government expenditure, of which I suppose about £1,000 million was interest, the rest being to service the loan by amortisation. That was about the same as—and it is now probably a little more than— the whole amount collected from the domestic ratepayer. Therefore, it is rather significant, when we are talking about the amount of interest paid on money borrowed by local authorities on an outstanding loan debt, that we are talking about the same figure as the total amount of rates collected from the domestic ratepayer.
Interest on the present amount of outstanding loan, which I put at about £20,000 million, must be a great burden on the ratepayer. I hold the view that it should be collected by a local tax on incomes, and not by a local tax on houses, but that is a matter not entirely free from controversy. What is, I think, uncontroversial is that we must move certain items of local government expenditure off the local rates and on to the central Government Exchequer.
I think that I am not going out of order, in discussing the encouragement of the increase of burden on the local ratepayer, if I say that education, law enforcement, the police, the courts and the fire service are all candidates when we look for other items to move off the back of the ratepayer. The only reason for hesitation is the fear that moving the finance might mean moving the responsibility.
Therefore, one looks for an item or items on which the local authority has little or no discretion or responsibility. What discretion is left to the local authority in the amount or the rate of interest it pays on its loans? Local authorities are told by the Government how much they can borrow. If they borrow from the National Loans Fund, as they are encouraged to do by the order, they are told the rate of interest they must pay.
Above all, the new local authorities which came into being on 1st April were saddled with the debts of the previous,


quite different, local authorities. There is every justification in the present crisis over rates for relieving the new local authorities of the liabilities incurred by the authorities from which they took over, certainly as regards the loans from central Government—that is, the loans from the National Loans Fund.
We have not hesitated to do exactly the same thing with nationalised industries and to write off debts in that case. The Government already repay 60 per cent. of that interest in the rate support grant, which makes a rather ridiculous and farcical position of the Government giving with one hand and taking back with the other.
Before the Government proceed with the order, and hang another millstone of interest round the ratepayer's neck, I ask them to forgo the 40 per cent. of the interest on the loans which is paid by local authorities and to write off the debts owed to the Government by the old local authorities.
Spread over the whole body of taxpayers, the amount of that loss of revenue to central Government falling on each individual taxpayer would be insignificant, but it is a more than significant burden on the individual ratepayer. I ask the Government to write off the debts of the old councils before encouraging the new councils to enter into new debts by making this £1,000 million available. By that means we should at least be taking one fairly substantial step towards relieving the ratepayer and doing so by nothing very much more than a book entry. At least it would relieve the ratepayer at this time—and I use the phrase again—of a national rate explosion. I hope that the Chief Secretary will give the matter consideration.

10.20 p.m.

Rear - Admiral Morgan - Giles: These are relatively uncharted waters for me. Having heard the figures that have been bandied about, I have two or three questions to put to the Chief Secretary. What are we discussing? The order, in effect, is a huge loan in addition to the exorbitant increases in rates to which reference has already been made. The increases apply particularly to rural areas such as Winchester where they may be 200 per cent. or even more.

Does the loan authority which is now being given authorise local authorities to borrow abroad in addition to the authority which we are now granting them?
In view of the incredible figures involved and the vast load that is carried by the ratepayers, are the Government doing anything to try to control spending? Are they pointing out to local authorities the extraordinary economic situation in which the country finds itself? Are they asking the authorities to throttle back and to minimise their spending to the greatest possible extent? From a philosophical point of view, is it not extraordinary that the Government are coming to the House at this time of night, when there are by my count exactly 10 hon. Members in the House, and asking us to give authority more or less on the nod for exactly £1.000 million? It makes me feel a little over-generous.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that we are not spending £1,000 million tonight. We are ensuring that the money is available to meet the expenditure of local authorities that was agreed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in Government.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is
£100 million for each hon. Member present.

Mr. Barnett: I know that these are uncharted waters for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. All that we are doing is making the money available for expenditure which was planned a long time ago.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: But to
the extent of £100 million per hon. Member present in the Chamber.

Mr. Barnett: When I look at my right hon. and hon. Friends I feel that they are worth every penny.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) began by telling us about the number of late night orders that have been put before the House in the past few weeks and suggested that they have a cumulative effect. I can only say to him that all of them were every bit as good as the present order. I am sure that they were all well worth considering at any time of the day or night.
The hon. Member for Worthing has suggested that we are running out of funds. It is rather surprising that he should talk in that way. I suppose it is possible that his three months of freedom from office have made him a bit lightheaded. However, I am sure that he understands that the £1,000 million that we are talking about is to meet expenditure that had been planned. We are not running out of funds, as he knows only too well, as does his right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
The right hon. Member for Crosby has also raised the issue of local government expenditure. The sum required is £1,000 million. We are not talking about local government expenditure as such but merely making the money available to meet local government expenditure that has been planned. This is not a matter of finding £1,000 million for new expenditure. The £1,000 million had already been decided upon. If we had not introduced the order local government in various spheres would have come grinding to a halt.

Mr. Higgins: Of course I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. It would be extraordinary if I did not. My question is how does the timing of the claim on the fund seem likely to develop over a period. That is important, given the emphasis put on the cash flow between different sectors and the view which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have taken on the liquidity of various sectors.

Mr. Barnett: This was taken into account in advance, and the speed with which it will be taken up between now and December will depend on the activities of local authorities. Therefore, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question specifically.
The hon. Member also asked about the water authorities. They are outside the scope of this debate, strictly speaking. The borrowing powers of the regional water authorities are laid down in the Water Act 1973, which I think the right hon. Member for Crosby introduced. That Act was passed under the Conservative Government. Like the nationalised industries, the water authorities may borrow for long-term capital purposes only from the National Loans Fund. In

other words, that matter has nothing to do with the order.
However, the hon. Gentleman asked me a question on this aspect, and in fairness I should answer it. The length of loan by each operator from the National Loans Fund is determined by the average life of the assets which the loan will serve to create. This policy serves to eliminate disputes which would otherwise arise as to the length of individual borrowings. The water authorities are subject to this regime in common with the nationalised industries. It has been decided, following discussions with the water authorities, that the average life of their new assets will be 25 years. This is, therefore, the period of their borrowings for new assets from the National Loans Fund. The rate of interest payable is that appropriate to a 25-year maturity loan. This is currently 14⅛ per cent. compared to the 16 per cent. the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
Apart from the need to borrow to create new assets, the water authorities will also need money from the National Loans Fund to re-finance, as it matures, debt inherited from local authorities. For this purpose, it has been agreed that the water authorities should be allowed to borrow for a shorter period of 10 years. I hope that explains the point which the hon. Gentleman was asking about, even if it is not entirely to do with the order.

Mr. Graham Page: Let us be clear. This does not come within the £1,000 million we are talking about in the order, but the regional water authorities can borrow from the Public Works Loan Board outside the £1,000 million.

Mr. Barnett: I did explain, in fairness to the House and the Chair, that I was moving slightly beyond the order. I did so in deference to the hon. Member for Worthing—indeed, because it was the hon. Gentleman who asked.
I turn now to the question of foreign borrowing. This is not done through the Public Works Loan Fund, as I am sure the House is aware. Local authorities have power to borrow abroad but this has nothing to do with the fund.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman used such emotive language at this time of night about rates is surprising. He talked about a "national explosion" over


rates. At any other time of day, I would call it damned cheek. The explosion over rates arose under the Conservative Government. The 1974–75 rate levels were settled before we took office. Therefore, I am prepared at any time of the day or night to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was an infernal cheek to pretend that this Government were responsible for this order or any other of a similar nature.

Mr. Graham Page: I was not necessarily implying that, but the Chief Secretary knows perfectly well that the Government mucked about with the formula for rates and made it very much worse by across-the-board domestic relief.

Mr. Barnett: I totally disagree with that. What the right hon. Gentleman calls mucking about was, in fact, action to help the high cost areas, such as urban areas in large towns and cities, which desperately needed money. I have heard no complaints in this regard, and I doubt whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have. I would be happy to pursue this point, but it is not quite within the scope of the order which we are debating. However, I would be happy to discuss it on some other occasion. To blame the Government and this order for high interest rates, as the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have attempted to do, is, I must say, taking things a bit far.
Bearing in mind the way interest rates were moving when we took over and taking into consideration what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done to reduce the level of interest rates, I have no need to apologise for anything. The right hon. Gentleman talked about hanging a millstone around the necks of ratepayers, but when we came into office we found that there was already one hell of a millstone, and we are now engaged in removing it as rapidly as we can—outside this order, because that has nothing whatever to do with the order. I am happy to ask the House to confirm the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

OPTION MORTGAGES

10.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I
beg to move:
That the Assistance for House Purchase and Improvement (Increase of Subsidy) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said earlier that he was part of the late show, but it seems that the motto of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and myself is that we never close. We start early, we work the night shift and we earn our money.
This draft order has the effect of increasing the scales of option mortgage subsidy at present set out in Statutory Instrument 1973 No. 1928. It is simply consequential to the changes in the basic personal rate of tax, announced in the Budget, from 30 per cent. to 33 per cent. The new subsidy scale will restore broad equality of treatment as between the option mortgagor and the mortgagor eligible for full tax relief at the basic rate on mortgage interest. The subsidy payable on an annuity mortgage—that is, the normal form of mortgage—at 11 per cent. will be increased from 3.25 per cent. to 3.6 per cent. This means, for example, that the monthly payment by an option mortgagor in the first year of a 25-year annuity option mortgage for £6,000 will be reduced by about £1·40.
The order is straightforward in its effect, but I particularly wish to draw attention to three points. First, when we last debated this subject a few months ago it was pointed out that there is a minor discrepancy between the amount of assistance available under tax relief at the basic rate, and subsidy, at the top and bottom of the steps in the subsidy scales. Such small discrepancies are inevitable but these have been reduced.
Where previously the subsidy was related to steps of 0·875 per cent. in the mortgage rate, under the proposed scale the subsidy will be related to narrower steps of 0·6 per cent. in the mortgage rate. This gives a closer correspondence with tax relief. It would be possible to reduce the steps even further but we decided not to do this because it would have produced an administratively long and cumbersome scale.
Secondly the House will note that, as previously, the draft order provides for two scales of subsidy, one for annuity mortgages and one for endowment mortgages. The latter is slightly lower. This is to ensure that, given that the endowment mortgage involves payment of interest only on a loan, both types of mortgage attract about the same proportion of interest-related subsidy. The increased rates of subsidy will come into effect on 1st August 1974. This will give lenders—who have been consulted—time to make the necessary administrative arrangements. I commend the order to the House.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi): The Opposition welcome the order and the relief that it will give to those who are in the option mortgage scheme. As the Minister has frankly stated, this is the direct result and the logical consequence of the increase in the basic rate of income tax in the Budget and it merely brings the option mortgage people up to parity with those mortgage payers who are able to offset their interest against the new rates of income tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Assistance for House Purchase and Improvement (Increase of Subsidy) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[MR. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Clause 1

ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO THE LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOT LAND.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Hector Munro: I am glad to associate the Conservative Party with this Bill. It is small in size but nevertheless important in that Scotland holds in high esteem the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The office

requires adequate finance to enable him to provide hospitality at Holyrood and to journey about the country in the fulfilment of his duties in the way we have come to expect.
No one will disagree when I say that the holders of this office have carried out their many duties with great dignity and have added much to the history of Scotland. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is the most important event in the annual calendar of our country and it is right that Her Majesty's representative to the Assembly should continue to carry out his important duty in the manner we all want, without financial worry. I am only sorry that no member of the Scottish National Party or the Liberal Party has come to support the Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for his remarks about the Bill. I too pay tribute to the Lords High Commissioner who have done their duty in such a splendid manner over the years. It is true that the Bill is necessary to provide the wherewithal to enable them to do the job properly. Since 1971 the figure specified in the previous legislation has been inadequate. We think that the proposed system will provide a much more flexible arrangement to keep pace with costs.
I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the absence of any member of the Scottish National Party, especially since it claims to care a great deal about the traditions of Scotland. The fact that the General Assembly has been meeting annually since 1694 and except for one year, has always been attended by a commissioner, illustrates the history of the office and of the General Assembly. I do not want to go into detail on that now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question— [22nd May]—
That Mr. Dennis Skinner be discharged from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and that Mr. Joe Ashton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.